Jump to content

User talk:Number 57/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Images

I think you might want to have a word with CeltBrowne, as she believes that my reverted edits are inferior to the edits that she made in regards to the images. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

I've had several words with them in the past and unfortunately they are insistent on trying to force massive images into election infoboxes (I've seen them return again and again to certain articles after being reverted). I'd be more than happy for you to reinstate your edits to the German articles, or even better, convert them to the legislative infobox to get rid of the whole images issue altogether. Certainly the pre-WWII articles should have that style as there were so many parties. Number 57 16:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm surprised she hasn't been temporarily banned(?). Anyway, I'll start converting them tomorrow (or later). Also, I'd like to hear your opinion on reducing the ideologies of Fianna Fáil too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:10, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Unfortunately Wikipedia seems (to me at least) to be increasingly dominated by difficult editors (probably as they drive away the nicer ones). Just look at the comments/rant on Talk:2024 Botswana general election from an editor who has long held a grudge against me (I presume because they didn't get their way in some discussion a long time ago) and seems to have popped up there just to take the opportunity to argue against me. Number 57 16:23, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I don't understand why the user would start the conversation on such a talk page. It should be on the template's talk page. I can understand where the user is coming from in regards to the parametres (although for the legislative election template with me), but unlike the user, I'm willing to compromise for such links to be elsewhere on pages (like another template, as not everyone will add links to pages for outgoing and incoming MPs). Some users can be so insistent on what they want that they fail to look at the bigger picture and think where else their idea(s) could be implemented. I find it quite rude the way Μαρκος Δ was replying. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
The article talk page is the correct place to discuss this, as the guideline is clear that using parameters is decided a case-by-case basis through talk page discussion. Cheers, Number 57 17:02, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Ah. Anyway, I would've thought that such discussion on a case-by-case basis would've been on the template's talk page, as it's easier to find the history of such topics, rather than on an election talk page's of a country. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:09, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
If he advocates for a blanket exclusion of this parameter, he should take it up on the template page instead of obstructing a large number of articles repeatedly. As for you @Number 57, let's remember to keep it civil and refrain from personal attacks. I did not "pop out of nowehere" because of some grudge, but screenshots of your behavior are currently circulating on social media, and I remembered your behavior from before so I decided to look into it myself. Cheers, Μαρκος Δ 17:14, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Ha, well that thread has confirmed my opinions on a couple of editors. Aficionado538, if you have something to say, you can always say it to me on here. Hold old do you think I am?? Number 57 17:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Did I tell you the user you just tagged had anything to do with that at all? Don't make assumptions and launch accusations against third-party users. And as for "if you have something to say, say it to me here", maybe this is a rule you should start following yourself; this entire thread is you badmouthing other users and spreading toxicity. Now that you have learned that your conduct is widely unpopular, use this as an opportunity to become a more positive and less toxic influence here on the site. Remember to keep things civil. Cheers, Μαρκος Δ 17:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not sure how I'm making assumptions when he's literally posted a screenshot of himself reverting me. Also hilarious to see a certain editor still doesn't know how Wikipedia works ("the people that run the template" lol). Number 57 18:03, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
"The people that run the template"...? What? I think you should take a break or possibly find some other hobbies to complement this one. Go outside and get some fresh air maybe, because you seem obsessive about other users. I will end it here as it is quite unpleasant to have to deal with you. Μαρκος Δ 18:11, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I simply read the thread you alerted me to, not sure how this is being "obsessive"? And likewise. Enjoy your weekend! Number 57 18:25, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
In that case you have read a different thread, because nobody used that phrase in the one I saw. Regardless you have indeed displayed some quite obsessive behavior here, yes. Enjoy your weekend, and like I said remember to step outside once in a while! Μαρκος Δ 18:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
No, it's definitely the right thread, but I did the quote above from memory. It was actually "the people running [the] infobox". Cheers, Number 57 18:32, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hm nope, I just double-checked and the phrase does not appear in that thread. So people must be talking about you over multiple threads I suppose. Cheers, Μαρκος Δ 18:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
It definitely does. Perhaps you're not expanding the replies. I would link to it, but it would probably fail outing rules. Number 57 18:42, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hm, maybe so, but again there are multiple connected threads there about you so we could be looking at different ones I suppose. Μαρκος Δ 18:44, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up! I look forward to Aficionado538's response. Number 57 18:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
To be fair he has nothing to do with this discussion beyond your mention of him, so I would not hold my breath. Even if you are hurt I think it would be good for everyone to leave this now. The Botswana election discussion is settled regardless. Cheers, Μαρκος Δ 18:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not hurt in the slightest (why would I care what an equally anonymous person says about me online?). I just think it's pretty odd that he feels the need to post insults about fellow editors on Twitter and then act all polite on here. Anyway, not sure what happened to "ending it here"? Number 57 18:56, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
That's good to hear. I just thought maybe the dozens of people liking comments about you being annoying might have an impact but I'm glad to hear they didn't. It's just Wikipedia, it's not that serious after all. And yes, I already just said let's leave this now so why don't we? Μαρκος Δ 19:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
No, not at all. I know there are plenty of people on here who hold grudges for various reasons (I can think of at least ten editors from the E&R project who have a very clear dislike of me due to various disputes over the years). But I have a very dim view of most of them too, so it's not really a surprise. Thankfully there are many editors who are on here who are great to collaborate with and who are capable of having a civil debate when there's a disagreement (and accepting it graciously when things don't go their way). Cheers, Number 57 19:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Indeed! As long as one is able to look inward and understand that having many long-standing opponents is oftentimes an indicator of one's own flaws, there is no problem. Anyway, once again, enjoy your weekend! Μαρκος Δ 19:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
It can be, but on the other hand, as Albert Einstein said "what is right is not always popular and what is popular is not always right". There is a problem with some E&R members of thinking their country is somehow special, or they have more rights to edit articles on their country than others (as Aficionado538 alluded to in his tweet). As someone with an interest in elections across the world, I've trampled on some (unhappy) toes over the years. But anyway, for someone who doesn't like dealing with me, you've stayed here for quite a while. Go and enjoy your evening. Cheers, Number 57 19:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Not reading all that :) Μαρκος Δ 19:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I have nothing against you. Have a great weekend! Aficionado538 (talk) 19:29, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
@Aficionado538: If you have nothing against me, I'm intrigued as to why you're throwing insults around on social media. Do you think that contributes to a collaborative environment? Number 57 19:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
So you are on social media? Interesting. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:38, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure why it's interesting, but that's not answering the question. Number 57 19:39, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
What I post on there is separate from my work on here 😆. By the way, feel free to edit Botswana's election articles if need be. I've no problem with that. I already conceded the removal of the opinion polling parameter and changing the description to 'none' which made perfect sense. It's just that you were on the wrong here and I'm happy we've reached a consensus. Aficionado538 (talk) 19:46, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
So you think insulting editors you are having a disagreement with on social media is ok, because it's "separate" to on here? Number 57 19:50, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Believe it or not, Wiki guidelines do not apply across the entire web. People are free to voice their views as they please on other platforms as long as it does not compromise your privacy or safety. For someone who is "not at all" bothered, you sure are dragging this out an awful lot. Μαρκος Δ 19:57, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Good evening again. Of course, I'm aware of Wikipedia:No personal attacks#Off-wiki attacks. I'm just intrigued as to why Aficionado538 thinks it's ok to do this (which he conspicuously still hasn't answered). I'm also wondering about the implications on WP:CANVASS, as his Twitter post clearly attracted some followers to join his side in the debate. Number 57 20:00, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
As for the first part, with all due respect, that really is not your business. To answer that second part, I can certify that I do not follow him, nor does he follow me, on any social media platform. Me seeing that was due to the algorithm only. So he has not canvassed anyone to intervene here. Hope this helps! Μαρκος Δ 20:04, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'll disagree on the first part (pretty sure it is my business if I'm being insulted), and would be interested in unbiased views on the second part (whether posting about an edit war to your followers encourages intervention on your side), as I'm pretty sure I've seen cases where people have done that and it has been deemed inappropriate. Number 57 20:07, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
You might be interested in it but you are not entitled to any explanations from anyone. On the second part, you might have had a case if I had been a follower of his or if he had actually encouraged anyone to intervene, which he did not. I decided to join the discussion unprompted by him or anyone. By the logic you present here, it would be forbidden for any editor to post about ongoing Wiki discussions, which is not the case, thankfully. Now kindly remind me, who was it that once praised those capable of "accepting it graciously when things don't go their way"? Μαρκος Δ 20:13, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm not saying I am entitled to one, but that it is my business. Re canvassing, I'm not sure whether you seeing it by accident or not is relevant; the issue is whether the canvassing happened or was attempted. I'm also sure you're aware that posting in a neutral manner is not canvassing, but can you make the argument that Aficionado538 was being neutral? Anyway, I have accepted that the debate didn't go my way this time, but you didn't quote the full sentence above, which referred to editors "capable of having a civil debate when there's a disagreement (and accepting it graciously when things don't go their way)". I'm not sure the civil part of that equation has been met here, especially when he's now gloating about it on Twitter. Oh well, another one to add to my dim view list. I actually thought he was a decent editor until today. Number 57 20:19, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Sure, but you can't be surprised when people think it seems obsessive. It seems you are now stalking his social media? Anyway, people can post about Wikipedia discussions in any tone they want, as long as they do not try to canvass and encourage people to raid a discussion. He did not encourage that, so there is no problem. Meanwhile, you bringing up the Botswana talk page here in this thread, unprompted, to unrelated users, and encouraging them to take a look while you badmouth the participants there, what should we call that? Μαρκος Δ 20:24, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
You keep using the word obsessive, but here we are on a Friday evening and you've posted 14 times on my talk page. As for the "encouraging", again, I'd be interested in an unbiased view. If someone posts on social media that they are in a dispute with someone on Wikipedia (and insulting them in the process), I'm not sure that can be deemed neutral. My comments about yourself weren't exactly hidden as you found them pretty quickly. Number 57 20:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I am not the one repeatedly searching through social media to see what people are saying about me. I am not sure if your comments above with ValenciaThunderbolt can be deemed neutral either. Μαρκος Δ 20:36, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I didn't ask Μαρκος Δ to come and help me. I had no prior contact with him whatsoever and this is the first ever interaction between us. Aficionado538 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Not sure you understand the canvassing rules. For example, if someone canvasses via a biased notification posted at WT:E&R, and people turn up as a result, it doesn't matter whether those people have ever interacted with the canvasser. It's still canvassing. Number 57 20:31, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay, and let me ask you again, what do you call the discussions you have been having here with @ValenciaThunderbolt? In this very thread you badmouthed participants on that talk page and encouraged them to go take a look at it. Μαρκος Δ 20:34, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
I call it having a moan about difficult editors and pointing them to an example of the conduct I'm moaning about. It was nothing to do with the subject being discussed, nor did I feel the need to insult you. Number 57 20:45, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hahahahaha! "Having a moan about difficult editors and pointing them to an example of the conduct I'm moaning about" is quite literally exactly what he did as well. And considering his version was off-Wikipedia, whether he included insults or not is irrelevant. I think we are quite clearly done here. Cheers! Μαρκος Δ 20:48, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Thank god for that. Enjoy what's left of your evening! Cheers, Number 57 20:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Yes indeed, enjoy your Friday night as all your others, on Wikipedia! Cheers! Μαρκος Δ 20:51, 2 June 2023 (UTC)
Hello, I'm the certain editor. I think he refers to a tweet of mine that says, and I quote, "i'm glad the people running infobox:legislation are good sports that didn't revert the dozens of parameters i added to make it more comprehensive (and properly applyable to laws passed in countries that aren't ex-uk colonies)".
Twitter is a social media site, and I naturally use a more casual language there. Moreover, "the people running infobox:legislation" is obviously a metaphor; I'm well aware that Wikipedia is a collaborative project, which is why I'm frustrated with Number57's tendency to impose his preferred version of infoboxes in Wikiproject:Elections and Referendums, which is textbook WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT — and vent that frustration outside Wikipedia, including on sites like Twitter. In the case of that particular tweet, I compared Number57's tendency unfavorably with the behavior of those editors who edit Template:Infobox legislation, who didn't mind my many additions to that infobox (one even thanked me for adding the number of votes for and against passage in the talk page there). Glide08 (talk) 20:37, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Block of User:47.227.95.73

Wrong tab open, I assume? Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:54, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

@Suffusion of Yellow: No, they were repeatedly removing the close at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2023 Chelmsford City Council election.[1] + four more times. Cheers, Number 57 16:57, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
The close was by an LTA (WP:DENY, but I'll email you their name, in sec). 47.227.95.73 is one of our best vandalism fighters. Suffusion of Yellow (talk) 16:59, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Yeah, I've been unblocked now. Thank you SoY for your efforts. We all make mistakes, after all. 47.227.95.73 (talk) 17:00, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 5 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 01:22, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Problems with upload of File:2019 Indian election screenshot.png

Thanks for uploading File:2019 Indian election screenshot.png. You don't seem to have said where the image came from, who created it, or what the copyright status is. We require this information to verify that the image is legally usable on Wikipedia, and because most image licenses require giving credit to the image's creator.

To add this information, click on this link, then click the "Edit" tab at the top of the page and add the information to the image's description. If you need help, post your question on Wikipedia:Media copyright questions.

For more information on using images, see the following pages:

Thank you for your cooperation. --ImageTaggingBot (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2023 (UTC)

Local elections

Hello, I began working on the article for upcoming regular local elections in Serbia and I was wondering whether it will have to be split into more articles due to its potential very large size. Here are some examples:

  • 2022 Serbian local elections: 12 municipalities and 2 cities (127k bytes), detailed and GA status. Not split as it is not needed.
  • 2021 Serbian local elections: 5 municipalities (62k bytes), detailed and GA status. Not split as it is not needed.
  • 2020 Serbian local elections: most municipalities and cities (249k bytes). It does not even contain all results of the elections (some districts are missing) and there is no detail at all, it's an article made up of tables.

Considering that for the upcoming local elections (which will be held in most municipalities and cities), the article will be styled similar to the 2022 and 2021 elections, so it will have full results and detailed information about the elections, I think that the article could be split by regions (Belgrade, Vojvodina, Šumadija and Western Serbia, and Southern and Eastern Serbia). Do you think that this would be a correct decision and if yes how do you think these articles should be named? Vacant0 (talk) 12:00, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I agree that splitting by region is probably the best way of doing it. It's not exactly the same situation, but UK election articles are split to some extent (e.g. 2022 Scottish local elections, 2022 London local elections, 2023 Northern Ireland local elections), although it's complicated by us not being an entirely federal state... One things that I noticed is that there isn't a national summary. Is this because it's not really possible due to lots of alliances being formed at local levels? Cheers, Number 57 16:41, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay thank you. I don't think that they could really be compared because what I've mentioned are statistical regions of Serbia, which is used by RZS, but also Serbia is a unitary state and the government has also centralised the country a lot in recent years. I think that the articles could be split in this way then:
I also don't get what you mean by national summary, could you clarify that? I also have another question regarding the Serbian elections template. When the above gets moved to mainspace, do you think that the part regarding local elections should be changed to this:
or should the template only include a link to the main article of a local election? Vacant0 (talk) 18:35, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
The national template should only link to the main article, otherwise it will become too overloaded. Re a national summary, I meant a total of the combined results – for example 2022 United Kingdom local elections#Overall or 2022 Scottish local elections#Results. Cheers, Number 57 18:55, 6 June 2023 (UTC)
Okay thanks. If possible I'll add something similar to that. Vacant0 (talk) 21:08, 6 June 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1960 establishments in Nyasaland

A tag has been placed on Category:1960 establishments in Nyasaland indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself. Liz Read! Talk! 19:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)

1996 Albanian elections

Hi http://www.electionpassport.com/files/1996-IRI-Parl-Elec-Report.pdf this is the link for the results since i added the numbers that way was because -6 for democratic alliance was that because the Democratic alliance did have a group before the election. Gjondeda (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

go to page 46 to see which party had seats in the final end of the of the 23rd Legislature of Albania Gjondeda (talk) 16:18, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

1996, 1997, 2001

I think the elections in albania from those years have the incorrect leader for the pbdnj https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caXLmX6KxeA since this video says that Vasil Melo lead the party until 2001 elections so would it be possible that it was not vangjel dule? Gjondeda (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2023 (UTC)

Farsley celtic

hey I am now but would like Farsley to have players listed if if is possible pls Woody6790 (talk) 22:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

French elections

Just to let you know, I'll convert the infoboxes to the legislative one as you update the pages :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Also, if you have the time, could you add a colour for Gaullists. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:38, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
I've no idea what colour would be appropriate. Also, re Likud, I looked again and I saw that it says "National Liberal Party" in the logo (in both Hebrew and English) but does not say it anywhere in the text in either language (hence why no hits appear on Google). Every Hebrew page has a copyright notice at the bottom listing the party name as "הליכוד - תנועה לאומית ליברלית" (Likud – National Liberal Movement). Not sure what's going on, but I am pretty sure "Movement" is the correct version (as it is used many other times on the website (e.g. here), whereas "National Liberal Party" is never mentioned anywhere). Number 57 14:30, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
How about #5d163d (a mixture of the colours of the Free France flag), or #002153 (which is the navy from the flag). I'm surprised then that they haven't changed the website to match the Hebrew translation. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:37, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
TBH I don't have a view on the colour, and I'm a bit reluctant to make one up. Maybe look on French wiki and see what they use, or ask Aréat. Cheers, Number 57 14:45, 16 June 2023 (UTC)
A replied and said that on French Wikipedia, they use #0066CC. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi, just asking: the new legislative infobox seems odd and unclear when it comes to French legislative elections... maybe reviewing the infobox's structure could be greatly beneficial to help people deepen understanding of French politics. As a French myself, I find this infobox a bit empty and unsuitable, and if I didn't knew better about French elections, I would be really confused, in particular with regard to the two-round system. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Frenchpolit (talk • contribs) 17:13, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

@Number 57: Quick question, should all the miscellaneous groupings be added separately, or should they be grouped as independents? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:14, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Really we should have the individual parties listed, if that information can be found... Number 57 18:17, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
However, these individuals are independents, but ideological. Check what I've added to the 2022 election infobox. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:19, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@ValenciaThunderbolt: I saw you merged them all to independents. I think it did actually look better before.
And perhaps one for Aréat; I'm also a bit confused by Results of the 2022 French legislative election by constituency, as this has only one miscellaneous right, six miscellaneous left, four "regionalists" (three Corsican deputies and one from French Guiana). Why does the results table in the main article have 21 miscellaneous left, ten rightists, ten regionalists, four centrists and one "miscellaneous". Cheers, Number 57 21:25, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
@Number 57: - I think the answer to that is in the results table on the electio page. Also, I reverted my edits to show the various miscellaneous groups. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:34, 18 June 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I'm of no use here. --Aréat (talk) 22:43, 18 June 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 19 June 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:10, 19 June 2023 (UTC)

19th Century French Elections

Hey, I just noticed you reverted all of my recent edits to pages on 19th century French elections. I'm doing my best to improve these pages with better-sourced material. If you think my changes or additions have issues, please start a conversation on the talk page so we can fix it rather than just reverting everything. SilverStar54 (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

I reverted material that didn't match the source, or wasn't in the source (unfortunately these articles have been plagued by incorrect additions and OR for years). Have detailed the issues with the 1834 article on its talk page, but the 1837 article also had several errors in it too (you had the number of seats wrong for the Ministerials, and the centre-left leader wrong). Just try to be more careful when adding information – the good thing about the {{Election results}} template is that it automatically sums the seats, so you can see if you've made an error because the number doesn't add up to what you expect it to be. Cheers, Number 57 21:00, 21 June 2023 (UTC)

Image sizes

I kept to our deal: In election infobox that already had your image_size = 130x130x, such as September 2015 Greek legislative election and 1990 Hungarian parliamentary election, I used CSS cropping but kept the size to 130x in height. You're gone and reverted CSS cropping where there was no image_size set at all. I didn't realise you were going to count articles with no size set as "changing the size". CeltBrowne (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2023 (UTC)

Below is the relevant section of the discussion, bolded for emphasis. It was clear it applied to all size settings. Number 57 21:28, 29 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking you not to change the height size from what currently exists. If the article uses the default size (which is 150px), keep it at that. If the article has a smaller setting (like 130x130px), keep the height at 130px. Number 57 13:01, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
I'm asking you not to change the height size from what currently exists.
I actually would be open to agreeing to do that except for the fact I know that you yourself have not kept to that piece of etiquette. Between 2013 and 2022, almost all the post-WW2 German Federal election image sizes were 160x and then you "compacted" them to 130x around mid to late 2022.
You can't ask people to observe an etiquette you yourself have bypassed.
If it would be "wrong" for me to change 130x to 150x, isn't wrong for you to have changed 160x to 130x? CeltBrowne (talk) 13:18, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
You were the one that proposed this arrangement ("you can have the size of images that you want while I get the uniformity of spacing I want via CSS cropping"), so I'm not sure why you're quibbling now I've agreed to it. Number 57 14:51, 3 June 2023 (UTC)
Alright Alright Alright, as a rule of thumb I'll keep to the size that's already there if you don't strip out the CSS. Let's say we've put this to bed, at least for now.
Sin é. CeltBrowne (talk) 15:06, 3 June 2023 (UTC)

CeltBrowne

The user said you came to an agreement, but going by yours and the users, it indicates that you haven't as the user has reverted your edits since yesterday. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Yehuda Perah

Hi! I thought I'd come discuss the one-source issue here before reverting any more. By adding the "this article relies largely on one source" issue template, I'm not trying to say that any of the sources are unreliable. Rather, most of the article should have more than one source for the information, to make it even more reliable. I won't add the template again since you added a few more sources in your latest edit, but I wanted to just make sure that you understood why I added the template. Thanks! :] Suntooooth, he/him (talk/contribs) 14:46, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 08:15, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

2023 Ecuadorian election user

The user that was blocked from editing the 2023 Ecuadorian general election has created a sock puppet account and is continuing to undergo his unproductive edits. TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:06, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Ecuador Elections 2023 Polls Section Vandalism [ part 5 ]]

Dear Number 57: Thanks for your attention and advice. English is not my Language and the texts needed a more careful revision , some parts are difficult to read ,indeed. It's basically important that you play attention, or go right to the main issues of concern:

1. The associated former ediction of the Polls Section of Ecuador General Elections, available on David C. S. Revision note of June 13, 22:55. On Reference note number 44 is possible to access the "Tino Electoral Poll", that is the basic reference given to the "June 7 Data Encuesta Poll" that you deleted and David C.S. reinserted ,shortly later and that is still there , on the Spanish and English Wiki Edictions.

2. The Reference note of the first "Data Encuesta Poll" , that includes Luisa González, stating the Research period as being June 5-9 [Diario Opinión Facebook page ] and the Wiki page specific to Luisa González , Section Political Career, about the date of the Proclamation of Luisa González [June,10].

3.The new Reference given by David C. S. after you deleted the June 7 "Data Encuesta Poll"[ 'La Posta' Facebook's page ]

4. The June 20, 23:13 Insertion by TBKR Chicago 101 [ the same editor that inserted the proven fraudulent "Data Encuesta" of 6/5-9 ] of the first published Poll ,Comunicaliza, with blatantly inaccurate data quotations.

Thanks for your consideration, Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

or 2023 General Elections Electoral Pools Section Vandalism [part 4]

  • Looking at the Page History of 2023 Ecuador General Elections up to June/20, 23:13 ten days after the last of the eight Oficials Candidates , Luisa González, from Citizens Revolucion, have been Proclaimed in her Party General Assembly, no Pools have been published, apart from the Section of precandidates.
  • At June/20, 23:13, a new column for the Electoral Pools ,First Round, lining the Oficial, proclaimed, eight Candidates and the first, Oficial Pool, Registered at the Electoral Tribunal [CNE/Ecuador] by Comunicaliza's Alvaro Marchante is published by TDKR Chicago 101.
  • I noticied several mistakes on the TDKR Chicago 101 attempts of reproduction of the Comunicaliza's Pool :

My first edition was made at June 21, 10:31 , correcting the grossly wrong statement by TDKR Chicago 101 that Jan Topić, placed in the second column, beside Luisa González, the first in place, had 10.3%! I correct it to 2.6%.

  • At June 21, 10:33, I noticied that TDKR Chicago 101 also wrongly gave 11.2% to Yaku Pérez .

I corrected to 10.3%.

  • At June 21, 19:35, I noticied thar TDKR Chicago 101, made another mistake, so crass as the one he had made involving Jan Topić: He gave to Otto Sonnenholzner just 6.2%!

I corrected it to 11.2%.

  • June 21, 10:39 I understood that TDKR Chicago 101 couldn't been so absent minded, he appeared to be interested in falsifying the Comunicaliza

Pool! He gave to the candidate Hervas 2.6%! I corrected it to 6.2%.

  • At 6/21, after 19:42, I reordered the positions of columns : first column the candidate with highest percentage points, second column I placed the candidate with the second higher pool rate, and so on...
  • June 23, 17:52 , TDKR Chicago 102 inserted the first "Data Encuesta Pool " dated June 9 , the order of columns have been changed , Yaku Pérez was placed in the second colunm.
  • On the sane day , 22:54, David C. S. appeared in scene for the first time, didn't made any change and just wrote the word "revision" .
  • June 25, 11:19 , I deleted the "5-9" "Data Encuesta Pool" writing a note justifying , saying that this "Pool" was a proven fraud because at the declared research period, Luiza González had not yet been declared the candidate of Citizens Revolucion, it happened June 10, and it couldn't be known beforehand.


  • June 25, 13:38 I removed " Data Encuesta" and inserted the calculation of Comunicaliza Pool abstracted the votes blanks, null and undecided electors to reflect the relative proportion of voter's preference between the candidates.


  • June 26, 2:19 TDKR Chicago 101 reinserted the aforementioned "Data Encuesta Pool" , apart from eliminating my calculation, just writting : "What? Makes no sense"
  • June 26, 11:41, I once again deleted the blatantly fraudulent "Data Encuesta Pool"
  • June 26 m, 13:13, TDKR Chicago 101 reinserted the "Data Encuesta Pool" said to have been done on 6/5-9, simply justifying: " Opinion Pools: unexplained content removal"
  • From them on I didn't try to reinstate my calculations of the relative proportion of votes between candidates to highlight the discrepancies of "Data Encuesta Pool".

I tried to mantain the order of columns and state the full research date of each published Pool , so that the attentive reader could better make distinctions and be aware that some pseudo-edictors were trying to mislead then in many ways . I wrote: Beware Wiki readers! Remain alert and make they own evaluations.

  • David C. S. Never tried to explain his own edictions, he just justified his request on banning me saying (in Spanish) in the Talk Section of 2023 Ecuador General Elections, that I had been trying to manipulate the data from the pools on the Spanish Language Ediction and I was trying to do the same on the English Ediction.

He also says: " my mission here is suply the data, not to interpret it, and that's what he's doing". He want to force fed Wiki reader with his concoctions and that everybody swallow and digest it all, regardless of "interpretations" of how it tastes and smells! TDKR Chicago 101, says that I created a sock pupet account and I'm continuing to undergo my umproductive edicts.

  • My only [and last] ediction using what TDKR Chicago call my sock puppet account for umproductive editing, was made on July 13 21:00.

Shortly afterwards, after I have been blocked from Edicting, TDKR Chicago 101 made the following mistakes, undoing my work:

  • Deleted the word 'Guayas' from the 6/26 - 7-3 Metria Poll.

Each quoted Pool is declared to be a Nationwide Pool, the Metria Pool is the only one restricted to the Province of Guayas [Capital Guayaquil]. TDKR Chicago 101 don't want the Wiki readers to know that!

  • The 6/20-7/11 Omar Maluc Poll he deleted the setting of the Null votes + Undecided electors in a single square as they are, actually, counted together [total=9.77%], he decided to misquote the Pool data, as it had been published, wrongly stating that the Null votes were not acounted, only the Blank votes [5.93%] and the Undecided Electors number, that, he says, numbered 9.77%!

And then, shortly afterwards, he comes...David C. S. between 22:41 and 22:55 made the following changes:

  • Placed Yaku Pérez in second, besides Luisa, and mixed up the order of the other columns.
  • Took away the full reserch period of each pool, he don't want the readers to interpret the preposterous situation of the "Data Encuesta Pool", he leaves only the last day, 6/9, instead of 6/5-9.
  • David C. S. don't want, also, the public understand, anything, about your personal fabrication, the "Data Encuesta" of "7/3".

To interpret the meaning of dates is not nice! Time is adjustable... At 7/14, 15:52, he reinsted his fraudulent "Pool", the ultrageous 'scam within scam', inventing percentages points at his will, about each candidate, except Bolivar Amijos that got 0%, creating a great number of participants, 6.800, and giving , as a Reference, a Blank Facebook page that states only the number of participants: 4.200... This 4.200 is the only data remaining of the 6/24 that had alredy been published, "Data Encuesta"! Before 7/14, 9:48 , when Number 57 "removed pool that didn't match the souce", he gave the full data, nonetheless, the same of the 7/22 "Pool", this time, published by another fictional Poolster called "Tino Electotal" [see David C. S. Page History, note of 7/13, 22:55, the one he called "Stable Version" and,on the formerly edited page, Reference number 44 ].

Certainly highly productive Edicts on need of protection and great care, after all, smelly sock puppets are all around...!

Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 10:36, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ecuador General Elections Vandalism of Electoral Pools Section [part 3]

The malpractices of the David C. S. Edict War on my postings began shortly after my first act of edicting a Wikipedia page.

It's all recorded, on the history of the Electoral Pools Section.

Just the MOST RECENTS Edictions of David C. S. revels clearly that the wrongs are intentional and viciously reiterative :

  • 16:33 7/14 : Number 57 blocks Dirceu Mag after his last attempt to erase Savid C. S. misleading Edictions ,calling it a 'Blind Revert'.
  • 21:00 D Pinto M reinstate correct Edictions.
  • 21:05 TDKR Chicago 101 undid my revision, he don't justify.
  • 21:31 Ad Orientem extends the ban on D Pinto M and "PROTECT" the page 2023 against 'persistent distuptive edicting'...
  • 21:41 : Victory! ☆David C. S.,happily,returns!☆

Between many others wrongs, he reinserted the "Data Encuesta Pool" whose date he writes, " 3/7 ".

On the Reference of this Pool [Ref. 44] he quotes Facebook's page of 'Lo del Momento, Loja' that shows a "Tino Electoral" Pool [the "new name" of "Data Encuesta"] that is, exactelly, the same "Pool",under the name of "6/22 Data Encuesta " published just below, in the same Wiki Electoral Pools Section .

David C. S. falsify one by one , every data percentage present on thec original quoted Pool, with exception of the margin of error [3.4%] and the pertencentage of candidate Bolivar Amijos,0%.

  • 21:55 : David C. S. ,after reinserting all his psedo-edictions, declares : " Versión Estable".
  • 9:48 7/14 Number 57 reinserted Dirceu Mag version of Comunicaliza Null+Undecided version of percentage and finally eliminated fraudulent C. S. "Data Encuesta Pool".
  • 15:52 : David C. S. reinserted the "Data Encuesta Pool"[or "Tino Electoral Pool] that Number 57 had eliminated.

He writes, justifying :(opinion pools) "Si el proplema es la referencia, pués se cambia la referencia, no se cambia la información" In English: "If the problem is the reference, thereafter the reference is changed , the information is not changed ". He changed the Reference from the Facebook's page 'Lo del Momento, Loja" , that published the "Tino Electoral"Pool a,thlt is, amost completely ,u nconcruous Dwith avid C. S.'s "quotation" and tis, actually, te same "Pool" already published uon Wiki nder "Data Encuesta" ,on 6/24. David C. S. gives a new Reference: a BLANK Facebook's Pa osta' page dated 7/6,20:00, with a single mention io a "Tino Electoral Pool" ,saying that 4.200 people have participated , the same of the aforementioned "Data Encuesta Pool " of 6/24 [Daviud C. S . falsily quotes as having .800 participants...]. This broken video posted on La Posta 'Facebook's page, plays just only fora single second. . David C. S. justified his sucessful requests on banning me 'for life' of edicting Wikipedia, stating, without giving any especific example or evidence, that I used to spread desinformation on the Spanish Language Ediction, until the day he arranged my banning from editing in there with the Librarin Ruy [that's still in force] and that I was trying to do the same practices with the English Language Ediction! Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 03:44, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Ecuador General elections 2023 Electoral Pools Section [2]

The first Electoral Pool published is proved to be a obvious fabrication ['Junk Pool ']. The date of the "Pool" stated on the Facebook's page of 'Diario Opinión'[Reference note 52] is a supossed reserch made on 5-9 June 2023. It hives the percentages of 8 candidates , including Luisa González that had be proclaimed Citizens Revolucion oficial candidate only on 10 June and no one could known it beforehand! I tried to analise the complicated issues raised by the falsification of data and others subtles forms of manipulations on my Talk Page but have been so far unable to do any stable editing, David C. S. acts promptly, deleting everything and reinstating his crooked version of how the Section should look like! Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 21:28, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

Ecuador General Elections 2023 Electoral Pools Section

David C. S. reinserted a blatantly false "Electoral Pool" dated July 7 from "Data Encuestas". It's still there on English and Spanish pages of 2023 Ecuador Elections. I deleted it several times but David C. S succeed in banning me from editing English and Spanish Wiki. My ban have been overturned on the English Ediction, but it's still on force at the Spanish Language Version . The ban on my I. P. address have been made by Librarian Ruy under direct request from David C. S. Can you help to resolve this impasse? Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 20:52, 16 July 2023 (UTC)

1956 French elections and Beyond

Do you have the results for them? The reason I'm asking is so that I can change the infoboxes to leg. elect. infoboxes. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:50, 14 July 2023 (UTC)

Yes, will update them at some point. Although not in the next three weeks. In the meantime, as I previously mentioned regarding the Japanese articles, don't just change one – you need to do the entire series. Otherwise it will get reverted on the basis that all the other articles have the other format. Cheers, Number 57 16:48, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The thing is I'm doing it instep with you, as the current numbers aren't always accurate. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:43, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
The Japanese articles are all done, results-wise. Number 57 17:47, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Sorry, I meant the French. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:50, 15 July 2023 (UTC)
Again, I would very strongly advise that you sort out the Japanese articles, or the edits to the 2021 one will likely be reverted. Number 57 13:14, 16 July 2023 (UTC)
And as predicted, this has now happened. Number 57 04:09, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 17 July 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2023 (UTC)

Blocked 🚫 On Wikipedia

Dear Number 57: I have been unblocked on English Ediction and have been able to reinserted my former Ediction of the Electoral Polls Section of Ecuador General Elections 2023. Following your advice I wrote a clear synopsis of each of my correction on the Page History [please check]. Under your request I have been, also, unblocked from the Spanish Ediction by Librarian Ruy...for a few minutes! I have been able just to delete the most obvious fraud from David C. S., the 7/3 "Data Encuesta Poll" and the same explanactive note that I wrote on the English Ediction. After the renewed 🚫 from Librarian Ruy ,David C. S. reinserted his most blatant fabrication! Afterwards, he, entirely, reinserted his former Ediction,on the English Language Version, erasing EVERYTHING that I wrote, as usual, without giving any explanation! By now, he already made it 3 times, waging his gratuitous Ediction War. Please help! Thanks for you consideration, Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 20:57, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

🚫 on Wiki Part 2

P.S.: The Process of Revisions of the Electoral Pools Section of Ecuador General Elections 2023 was made through 11 Explanatory Notes posted on the Page History, one for each correction made: 1. 8:18 2. 9:00 3. 9:31 4. 9:50 5. 10:40 6. 11:29 7. 11:58 8. 13:05 9. 13:33 10.13:57 11.14:46 At 14:51 David C. S. again wags a Edition War , erasing all my painstakingly done work with just writing a single frase "justifying" his action : [in Spanish] "Congratulations Administrators!You let get in the SPA! Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2023 (UTC)

Editing Emley AFC

Hi there, just wanting some feedback on why the edits on Emley AFC keep getting undone? Is there varied reasons or is it the same issue that means the edits can't be published?

Many thanks Marteast (talk) 11:01, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

Political Wiki Page

Can you make this page in English https://mk.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%9B%D0%BE%D0%BA%D0%B0%D0%BB%D0%BD%D0%B8_%D0%B8%D0%B7%D0%B1%D0%BE%D1%80%D0%B8_%D0%B2%D0%BE_%D0%9C%D0%B0%D0%BA%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%BE%D0%BD%D0%B8%D1%98%D0%B0_(2021) Mirditor22 (talk) 12:14, 29 July 2023 (UTC)

Honours

in here runners-up its down as an honour so now I am confused ?

Wrexham A.F.C. 82.26.42.243 (talk) 00:04, 30 July 2023 (UTC)

RUNNERS-UP in honours

You keep removing RUNNERS-UP in honours on Sport London e Benfica page but in UXBRIDGE FC PAGE you didn't remove it? doesn't make sense! 82.26.42.243 (talk) 21:05, 31 July 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 1 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:38, 1 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:Connah's Quay F.C. players

A tag has been placed on Category:Connah's Quay F.C. players indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 2 August 2023 (UTC)

Maidenhead United

Thank you for extending the lead on Maidenhead United F.C.. However, I thought your edit summary seemed a bit unnecessary and rude. I had only put the template message back on 30 minutes before you extended it. I was planning on extending it myself later this weekend. All the best Michaeldble (talk) 10:49, 5 August 2023 (UTC)

Personally, I thought the tagging was unnecessary and pointless, and made worse by reverting the tag in rather than just resolving it yourself. Number 57 02:42, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
I did have it on my to do list, but yes I should have done it earlier. My main objection was the odd comments you made in the edit summaries, please be a bit more polite next time - we're on the same side after all. All the best Michaeldble (talk) 22:04, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
FYI, the reason I reverted it without fixing it was because I was heading out Michaeldble (talk) 22:06, 6 August 2023 (UTC)
Why not just wait until you got back to do it and avoiding a pointless revert? Number 57 17:59, 7 August 2023 (UTC)
I didn't think at the time that it made much of a difference I guess. I only posted here because I thought you were being overly dismissive for no particular reason, but I guess I'll leave it be. All the best Michaeldble (talk) 20:10, 7 August 2023 (UTC)

Serbian elections

Hi, does the Nohlen and Stöver Elections in Europe: A data handbook book by any chance cover pre-1990 elections in Serbia? Vacant0 (talk) 16:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

It gives details of Serbia's electoral system and history all the way back to 1869, but no election dates or results until 1992. Cheers, Number 57 16:49, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Alright, thanks. I asked you that because I'm creating an article for the 1986 parliamentary election and there is little to none information about the election online (I found some stuff online, article is now on mainspace). There was a book from 1987 that RZS published but it is unavailable online and even offline. The Official Gazette did not publish anything either about the election. Vacant0 (talk) 17:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

Colne FC edits

Good Morning,

I see you've removed the new name of the NORI Stadium from the edits. This is now what the ground is called due to sponsorship.

I see other clubs haven't had this removed, for example, the Peninsula Stadium with Salford FC.

Is this an oversight? Could the new name I.e. the edit be added back? 2.99.223.42 (talk) 10:09, 13 August 2023 (UTC)

No, sponsored names are not used where there is an alternative (hence why the article on Salford's ground is at Moor Lane. Thanks for flagging up the Salford article, now fixed. Number 57 18:31, 13 August 2023 (UTC)
Thank you for the clarity. Is NORI Stadium allowed to be on the "About Section"?
I see on Salford FC this morning that the Peninsula Stadium is still listed with a link to the article on Moor Lane rather than Moor Lane itself.
Also how long does this rule last? In 5 years time if people only then know it as NORI Stadium and they've forgotten Holt House, can we then update the page? 2.99.223.42 (talk) 07:51, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
Actually I've just looked and it appears your edits to fall in line with those rules were reversed last night by another administrator.
Could we get clarity on the rules if one administrator is removing sponsored names but another is keeping them up?
I see lots of other clubs have their sponsored name still up, for example, The City of Manchester Stadium (currently known as the Etihad Stadium for sponsorship reasons)
Are we able to list Colne in a similar way? 2.99.223.42 (talk) 07:56, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I assume the person who reverted on the Salford article (who is not an administrator) is not familiar with the convention, and I see another editor has changed it back to Moor Lane. And no, stadiums that have unsponsored names will always have unsponsored names. The only time sponsored names are used are when there was never a non-sponsored name (like Leicester's ground).
Why are you so keen to change it to the sponsored name? Please bear in mind our WP:Conflict of interest guidelines. Number 57 19:06, 14 August 2023 (UTC)
I'm only keen because it now appears there's one rule for higher league clubs and another for grass roots. Again the Salford FC in the Stadium section names it as Peninsula Stadium for Sponsorhip purposes, as does Manchester City, Arsenal and Stoke (bet365) just from a quick glance.
I don’t mind if this truly is the rule, but it appears that a grass roots club is being impacted in a way to thank the sponsors in a way that others arent. So does Wikipedia need to go through every football clubs pages and change them based on the rule you are outlining, or can I change it so it matches up with the layout of those 3 clubs I have named? 31.94.29.242 (talk) 07:31, 15 August 2023 (UTC)
The stadiums of Arsenal and Stoke have never had a non-sponsored name.
The fact that you refer to clubs being "impacted" and talk about it being a way to "thank the sponsors" makes it pretty clear that you have a conflict of interest, either linked to the sponsor or the club. Please declare this. Number 57 11:05, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 15 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 14:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Question

Greetings! I wanted to ask what the Nohlen book says the results for the 1982 Mexican Senate results were. Another user insists that the PRI won all 64 seats, but I am sure that is correct. Cheers, — N Panama 84534 20:54, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

@N Panama 84534: According to Nohlen, PRI won 63 and PPS 1. However, the IPU does say all 64 were won by the PRI... Cheers, Number 57 21:02, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Naming conventions

WP:NICKNAME very specifically instructs against placing nicknames, or "contractions" if you like, in quotation marks in between first name and last name in biographies. Iskandar323 (talk) 09:56, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

WP:NICKNAME is specifically for article titles, not the text in the introduction. It is saying do not use William "Bill" Clinton as an article title. The relevant guideline is actually MOS:NICKNAME, which says it should not be used when the diminutive is a "common English-language" one, but Dudi is not an English language one. Number 57 10:00, 19 August 2023 (UTC)

Stadium Name

Hi there, i am contacting you in relation to the stadium name of Colne FC. your rationale for the stadium not being names after a sponsor is unvalid and should not be the case here. the Stadium name has changed. This may be permanent or temporary however as with any premier league or EFL club, the stadium name can change.


If you continue to alter this change, a report will be raised with Wikipedia. Dannj90 (talk) 14:31, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Concerning Bcmh

Hi Number 57, I saw your edits on Bcmh's talk page concerning their unblock request. I think it is a good idea if you stay away from their talk page for a while, as a continued back-and-forth might be considered WP:BATTLEGROUND behaviour if it continues. Administrators evaluating future unblock requests will see your comments and they will use that information in their assessment of the situation. Z1720 (talk) 20:27, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Election box

Hello, I just noticed there is yet another discussion about the election box on the recent ecuadorian election talkpage. Considering how much you've been struggling with it for years by now, I was wondering. Have you ever tried to have the election infobox we use on the french wiki? It's got the results, photos, and allow for more than two candidates without it being enormously large. Just my two cents. Aréat (talk) 02:02, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

I have suggested a few times that it be remodelled like the French/Spanish ones. Perhaps someone needs to do the code in the sandbox to make a proposal. Still not a fan of including all the candidates if it's a two-round one though. Cheers, Number 57 19:52, 22 August 2023 (UTC)
The way we do it, we only include candidates with more than 5 % of the votes. I find it useful to portray election in which it's not a two party system, with the two top candidates not having almost all of the votes, and third or fourth placed candidates playing an important role in determining the winner by giving support between first and second round. Anyways, do you know where I may work on it or ask support to do so?--Aréat (talk) 12:34, 23 August 2023 (UTC)
You can just start a copy in your userspace (e.g. User:Aréat/Infobox election) and then transclude it in your sandbox to text by calling {{User:Aréat/Infobox election}}. Cheers, Number 57 20:22, 25 August 2023 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:German emigrants to Nauru

A tag has been placed on Category:German emigrants to Nauru indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:03, 26 August 2023 (UTC)

Regarding 1948 Romanian parliamentary election

(And all subsequent articles, through 1985): the problem here is that Communist regimes had a deep-seated ideological aversion to the notion of parliaments, viewing them as mere talk shops within the bourgeois system. If we must for some reason get rid of the perfectly fine “legislative” (fine for its very vagueness), then perhaps an exact description would be better? 1948 Great National Assembly election, etc. “Parliamentary” is simultaneously too specific and too vague to be useful.

Also for 1857, that was not a parliament they elected. — Biruitorul Talk 12:54, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

I think whatever the Communist regimes' attitudes were, the institutions they had were still commonly referred to as parliaments. The rationale for renaming (here) was that "parliamentary" and "legislative" are effectively synonyms (for national-level elections) but parliamentary is a more widely understood term. :Most other communist elections are 'parliamentary' (Albania, Bulgaria, Cuba, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Laos, North Korea, Yugoslavia). Legislative is used by a minority (Mongolia, Poland, USSR, Vietnam) and a couple use general (Cambodia, East Germany), so I don't see any issue with using parliamentary. Cheers, Number 57 20:11, 29 August 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 August 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:44, 31 August 2023 (UTC)

Zim Election

Heaven forfend that people should actually know what the graphic shows by having colours to refer to in the chief and disabled bar! You really are a destructive editor on this website. Why don't you contribute to the sharing of knowledge rather than the removal of it, after all that is what we are here for! Mangwanani (talk) 08:28, 1 September 2023 (UTC)

  • If you feel the article is lacking, then you should add it, not delete everyone else's work like that. That's very offensive!
  • Alright, I am pretty hot, we make in peace, don't we ?

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:German emigrants to Nauru

A tag has been placed on Category:German emigrants to Nauru indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 01:11, 4 September 2023 (UTC)

regarding ukrainian election

Wikipedia is a reliable source-based page. Please provide a reliable source if you want to make changes. The best source is a first-hand source - for example, a transcript of a constitution. Tomekyy (talk) 21:02, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

There were already sources backing up the statement, literally saying "No elections can be held in Ukraine while martial law in effect". Number 57 21:43, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 16 September 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:37, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

ANI

Information icon There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. Thank you. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 20:01, 15 September 2023 (UTC)

My sincere apologies. I will revert to the status quo as you preferred. This whole thing has been blown way out of proportion. I hope we can start over. I also hope you can appreciate the expertise I bring to the table for this specific area, and hence a topic ban is counter-productive for both me and Wikipedia. Solomon The Magnifico (talk) 16:39, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

See Wikipedia:Expert editors. Your contributions will be quite welcome if you are able to contribution your expertise productively. This means engaging in discussion when there is dispute in the relevant places, probably the article talk page.

But more importantly, it means you need to be able to provide sources for claims you make. We cannot rely on your expert knowledge, be it from where you live, or your family background. Your expert knowledge is useful if it enables you to improve articles including recognise when there are errors or information missing, finding or providing sources to support these improvements. Sources are key here, unfortunately whatever you expertise if you cannot provide sources but simply want us to trust because of your expertise that isn't going to work.

The only exception is if there is information in our articles that is wrong and which isn't sourced, then it is probably fine for you to simply remove it. (Any editor can do this, but while it's complicated for various reasons it's not always productive to go around removing large parts of articles even though they appear to be unsourced, but definitely it's fine to do so when you believe the info to be wrong.) However even if you are removing info because it is unsourced, you shouldn't also be replacing it with something you believe to be correct if you don't have sources.

And you cannot just remove the info when there are decent secondary sources supporting what you want to remove. Note this means you should be willing to check out the sources provided and see if they support the info even if you believe it to be wrong. If you check out the sources and the don't actually support what's being said then it's unsourced so we are back in the 'generally okay to remove' situation.

But if it is in the sources then if you still think it's wrong, you ideally need to be able to provide sources to support what you are saying about it being wrong or at least a source which provides the alternative claim you wish to make. If you can't do that, you need to at least be able to explain to us why the source being used is not reliable or not sufficient for the information cited. If you can't do these, then you will likely just need to accept the existing sourced info you believe to be wrong until such time you can find sources demonstrating what you believe.

Also importantly, you also should be willing to accept that even with your expertise you may be wrong. You initially seem to disbelieve that Scheduled Caste Federation existed in East Pakistan claiming you couldn't find sources for it and implying your expertise also meant we should trust you. You now seem to have accepted it did exist and you were simply wrong.

Being wrong is fine, any editor here is going to be wrong about something they believe. The problem is you removed the info based you your belief. From what you've said, it sounds to me like you didn't even bother to read the sources which said SCF won 27 seats because you were so sure you were right. That is a problem since if you refuse to read sources which disagree with you because you're sure you're right you're not going to realise when you're wrong.

Note that while you disagree with linking it to the other article, that's a different issue since removing that link should not mean removing the info on something which did exist.

Nil Einne (talk) 00:31, 17 September 2023 (UTC)

Guatemalan parties

Hi, I've seen that you've been changing the format of the tables in some Guatemalan parties but I'm not sure why. In the aftermath of the election I saw that there was almost no general rule among the format of those tables (and associated section names) and I decided to modify them adopting a common format for all of them. The fact that you're reversing my edits, and the fact that you're doing it only on some selected parties preventing me from establishing that commonality is something I don't really understand, and if you could provide me with a reason before engaging in an edit fight it would be the best. If you have suggestions I'm happy to hear them and see if we can reach an agreement, but rejecting my edits just out of personal asethetical preferences without giving further explanations or feedbacks is not the best. Fm3dici97 (talk) 22:32, 26 September 2023 (UTC)

Hello. The reasons I reverted the changes were:
  • "Election results" is a clearer and simpler title than "Electoral history"
  • "President" is a more concise title than "Presidential elections", which is unnecessarily long
  • "Congress" is a clearer title than "Legislative elections"
Cheers, Number 57 07:14, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Yeah but the main problem is that you reverted edits only on a handful of randomly selected party pages, while the majority still mantains the changes I made. What was the point of that? If you feel that there's a problem with how I formatted the section you should have reached out to me before applying any changes, and if you decide to take care of the new formatting you should've applyied the change to all of pages and not just a minority. Moreover, some of your changes concern minor issues like having the year column formatted with "|" rather than with "!", which seems to me a purely personal preference in contradiction with what is the standard not just in Guatemalan party pages, but in general in the WikiProject. Fm3dici97 (talk) 08:30, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
Those articles are the ones on my watchlist. If I'd seen the other changes, I'd have reverted them too.
Re the year column, it's not a column header, so shouldn't be formatted using a !. Number 57 08:37, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
I understand. Does there exist yet a sort of "guideline" about how to format those sections and tables in the context of wikipedia election pages? And if not, wouldn't it be better to have it in order to make the editors' work more efficient? Since I'm quite active I would probably make use of it. Fm3dici97 (talk) 08:57, 27 September 2023 (UTC)
No, there isn't unfortunately. The best thing to do may be to create a template to use, which means it can be standardised (just like {{Election results}} is slowly becoming the norm for results tables, in place of a huge range of differently formatted tables). Cheers, Number 57 10:55, 27 September 2023 (UTC)

Next Ukrainian presidential election

Good evening, regretably I find your revert [2] unconstructive for the following reasons:

  1. The Ukrainian government did not introduce any new martial law as your sentence could be read. The law has already existed. The government simply declared the state (or the time) of martial law or put into force that existing martial law.
  2. Some restrictions to rights and freedoms in the state (or in the time) of martial law are permitted per Article 64 of Constitution of Ukraine. Only those rights and freedoms that cannot be withheld are listed in the Constitution and election rights are not among them. In other words, the Constitution is not banning the presidential elections, but they could be banned by some other laws, and, in fact, they are banned by law "On Legal Regime of Martial Law". In your sentence "... constitutionally prevents the holding of presidential elections ..." the word "constitutionally" is quite misleading.
  3. Minor editorial improvements, like a hyperlink to Ukraine (Russia tries to picture Ukraine as a failed state), "election" in singular rather than in plural (Russia is engaged in breaking the country apart) would not hurt. Why did you revert them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2378:11B5:EBB0:E5C1:F530:4F17:16E6 (talk) 15:21, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Likewise, I found your edits unconstructive, which is why I reverted them.
  1. "introduce" does not mean it was a new law, it means it was implemented (Zelenskyy himself is quoted as saying "We're introducing martial law"). However, I've changed it to "implemented".
  2. I don't doubt that article 64 allows that, but it the addition of this sentence does not seem to fit.
  3. According to one of the sources cited "the Ukrainian constitution does not allow to hold elections while martial law is in effect", so use of "constitutionally" is not misleading unless the source is wrong. I have reworded slightly.
  4. Common words like Ukraine should not be hyperlinked (see MOS:OL) and "elections" is common usage. No idea what the Russia point is?
Cheers, Number 57 15:47, 29 September 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for your reply, and particularly for a reference to MOS:OL. The statement "Ukrainian constitution does not allow to hold elections while martial law is in effect" is indeed incorrect according to the Speaker of the Ukrainian parliament [3]. A reference to Article 64 of the Constitution is beneficial because it uncovers to the reader a possible mystery of the next presidential election not taking place on the date specified in Article 103 of the Constitution. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2378:11B5:EBB0:9035:AF35:1D4A:E75B (talk) 19:26, 29 September 2023 (UTC)

1967 French legislative election

I've tried to add the total of votes for UOR (centre-right coalition term), but it won't show, I think I've done everything right. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:09, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

Please don't publish an edit if you can't get it to work. Leaving the article with a broken results table is really poor thing to do. Regardless, I don't think it was correct to combine them into an alliance anyway. Number 57 17:12, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
So then why did you combine them into a alliance for the 1986 election? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:18, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Because they actually formed a formal alliance for that election, with a joint list of candidates. Number 57 17:33, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
I see. It also looks like there was one for 1981 too. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:42, 1 October 2023 (UTC)
Less sure about that one – there were more candidates than seats, so the parties within the alliance were competing against each other. Number 57 19:35, 1 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 3 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 20:31, 3 October 2023 (UTC)

Union of the Right and Centre

I find it odd that there were coalitions of them over time, yet they competed in the same seats, at times. Is there any reason to suggest why they did so? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:43, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't really understand it myself... Number 57 22:26, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

Next Thai general election

Hello, I would like to consult you on the article. Thailand's next election, which type of inbox is good? อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 16:14, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

Should be the same as the others in the series IMO. Thailand has a system where a large number of parties win seats. Cheers, Number 57 22:12, 7 October 2023 (UTC)

SPI

Could you take a look at this SPI I just opened: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/37.122.170.131. I've been having problems with this user (you might have seen it on your watchlist) for the past week. Their IPs have been blocked for a short period of time but they keep coming back under a different IP. Vacant0 (talk) 18:32, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 21:29, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
Sorry to bother you again but the user is back again under a different IP: 109.228.77.70 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacant0 (talk) 08:22, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Have blocked the IP. Cheers, Number 57 08:24, 20 October 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 23 October 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 07:01, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Nomination of Achdus for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Achdus is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Achdus until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Renata•3 03:54, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

November Articles for creation backlog drive

Hello Number 57:

WikiProject Articles for creation is holding a month long Backlog Drive!
The goal of this drive is to reduce the backlog of unreviewed drafts to less than 2 months outstanding reviews from the current 4+ months. Bonus points will be given for reviewing drafts that have been waiting more than 30 days. The drive is running from 1 November 2023 through 30 November 2023.

You may find Category:AfC pending submissions by age or other categories and sorting helpful.

Barnstars will be given out as awards at the end of the drive.

There is a backlog of over 1000 pages, so start reviewing drafts. We're looking forward to your help! MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2023 (UTC)

House of Councillors election

Hi there. I was wondering if the seats should be compared to the last time the seats were up for election, or compared to the last election. What do you think? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:09, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Should be compared to the last election IMO. Cheers, Number 57 13:51, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Alright :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Pakistan 2023 General Elections

Dear 57 ;

I wrote a long dissertation about my edition , much more could be said about such a important matter but you told me not to do so , people , nowadays , will not be interested .

Nevertheless , you can access my talk page and read my letter to muzzzmuzzuzzz .

I can justify to you or to him everything in detail and accurately , just ask.

My problem with wiki is only about thechnical issues ( I don't have much practice/interest on Informatics ) not about the essential content itself.

By the way , my last edit is NOT a Electoral Poll , it's a resent Academic Research Paper , a Electoral Survey on Islamabad District that I understood as highly enlightening about the political prospects in Pakistan , now centered on electoral issues.

The data was placed on the right place , as a introductory text to the mainstream media electoral polls .

Eventually , it can be used in the specific newly opened section about electoral polls in the Federal District but shouldn't' t be removed from the original placement.

I said eventually because in Pakistan and in this historical moment , the popularity of the political liders is exactly coincident with the popularity of theirs political parties and the tendency to vote.

It is not the case in places like Brazil in which a candidate has 80 % popularity , get about 50% of the vote and a small number of Assembly members ( 80% of his simpatisers vote in the a great number of opposition political parties !).

This is not going to happen in this specific election in Pakistan , IF it ever happens...

If you don't have time to read my full explanation on my talk page (I'm trying to post it on Muzzzmuzzuzzz talk page as well ) please scrow down the page history of Pakistan 2023 Election and see the 3 notes that I left as a sinopse justifying my ediction.

Muzzzmuzzuzzz deleted it 3 times , but he is no David C. S. , he is much more considerate to others people edicts.

Thanks for your consideration ,

Dirceu Mag


Dirceu Mag (talk) 13:58, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

I think Muzzzmuzzuzzz is right here, and I would strongly advise you to stop edit warring before you are blocked for good. Number 57 14:00, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Number 57 :
Please read my replies on Muzzzmuzzuzzz talk page.
Your answer is inconsiderate and abrupt , matters on elections edicting are important serious and should be approached with utmost care and full accountability : every statement should be accurately justified and that is what I was trying to do, despite the obstacles that you are creating.
Dirceu Mag Dirceu Mag (talk) 16:10, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

Request for blocking me

Dear Number 57:

I just added a topic to Ymblater talk page about Muzzzmuzzuzzz request for blocking me.

This is not fair.

Thanks for your consideration,

Dirceu Mag

ir.

Dirceu Mag (talk) 19:16, 2 November 2023 (UTC)

Page edits

Thanks for updating this page for me, i ran out of time earlier sorry about that.

if you check this again you'll find they were promoted in 2020/21. And as for a squads they have a first XI, a reserve team, and many other age levels in local youth football. They field a squad of Veterans too.

If you look on their website it will tell you that they acknowledge Buckingham Town/MK Robins FC honours, Unite MK honours, and the MK Irish Veterans honours as well.

I'll leave a link here for you https://mkirishfc.co.uk/club/history/ TheDon79 (talk) 19:18, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

Being promoted isn't an honour. And re squadlists, it isn't appropriate to have them at this level as few or none of the players are notable and they don't get updated frequently enough (editors always promise they will, but then don't). The club can claim the previous clubs' honours on its own website, but on Wikipedia, they stay on the previous clubs' articles. Cheers, Number 57 10:49, 4 November 2023 (UTC)

Lithuanian interwar elections

Hi, I need to discuss with someone and I figured you'd be the right person as you wrote the Lithuanian election articles back in the day. So this is really weird, but there are no official results published by party. There are results of total votes by party, but not seats won. The seats won are by parliamentary fraction which might be a combination of different parties. E.g. all Polish or Jewish reps fall into one fraction, though they might be from different parties. I even checked official government periodicals that published the election results back in the day. They list parliamentary fractions, not actual parties.

I already corrected errors in Achdus and Central Polish Electoral Committee as those were easy to cross check based on individual biographies of members of the Seimas. There is a particular distortion in 1920 Lithuanian parliamentary election results. It shows Farmers' Association winning 20 seats with 7,535 votes. I think that's an error when trying to "retrofit" Seimas' fractions to political parties. I.e. there was a "Farmers' Association" fraction in the Seimas with 20 (or 18) members but best I can tell without digging thru each individual biography of the 20 people is that they were elected based on the Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party list (the two parties were very closely related). Also the two independent seats were two people elected on party lists that refused to join the party's fraction in the Seimas, not an actual candidate who ran independently.

In short, there is a ton of errors in assigning seats to the parties in 1920, 1922, 1923, and 1926 election articles. I can't decide what's the best action. Having seats by party seems like very valuable (and basic) information, but at the same time very error-prone and attempting to fix it would lead to original research.

So, any suggestions what to do here? Leave the seats and fix them as much as possible? Delete the seats by party and present the official results by fraction? Thanks, Renata•3 04:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)

What was the electoral system? PR with a single national constituency, or PR in several constituencies? Cheers, Number 57 13:54, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
There was no single national constituency. There were six electoral districts (constituencies). Renata•3 16:21, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Are there results at the constituency level (votes + seats for each list) published anywhere? Number 57 22:37, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Lithuanian statistical bulletin published total votes by district by party, but did not indicate how many seats were won. Seats are indicated only by parliamentary fraction. Renata•3 23:22, 1 November 2023 (UTC)
Do we know the total number of seats awarded in each district and the method of seat allocation (D'Hondt etc?). If so, we should be able to calculate the seat allocation ourselves and see if it aligns with any sources. Number 57 18:15, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
Huh, that's an option I have not considered. I don't know exact methodology used, but I do know that there were plenty of accusations of "vote stealing" by the larger parties because electoral law was a bit vague on what to do with "leftover" votes. I'll give it a shot (this will take awhile) and see if it gets me anywhere. Renata•3 02:02, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
@Renata3: I checked Nohlen & Stöver; it says the 1920 election was done using d'Hondt. The 1922–1926 elections were held on the basis of the 1 August 1922 election law ("Seimo rinkimu istatymas") using quotas and remainders (although it doesn't say which type of remainder...). Cheers, Number 57 11:59, 5 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 6 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 03:44, 6 November 2023 (UTC)

2022 Chilean etc

Not at all impressed with the person you're warring with -- everything marked as minor, most of their edits one of POV-pushing, unsourced brain-droppings, or pointless fiddling with images, first response to every disagreement to revert, no talk-page use. Since all their edit warring is slow-motion it's not suitable for WP:3RRN, but they've been warned enough that a trip to ANI is probably inevitable eventually. --JBL (talk) 21:27, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Maybe Beshogur or Hipal would have thoughts, too. (It's about this.) --JBL (talk) 21:32, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
Dealt with for other reasons, sorry for the bother. --JBL (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive IP

The disruptive user that inserted unsourced content and misinformation onto Serbian political articles (from Montenegro) is back under a different IP: 31.204.251.204 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). The admin that previously had helped me has been indeffed as a sock, but I remember coming to you first. Could these articles receive protection like the other ones or could the IP get temporary blocked? Thanks... Vacant0 (talk) 20:28, 3 November 2023 (UTC)

No worries – I've blocked them. Cheers, Number 57 10:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you so much. Vacant0 (talk) 10:50, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
And again... 78.155.62.199 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacant0 (talk) 09:52, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Some kind of page protection is probably needed now, we already know that this IP will return and make the same edits. Vacant0 (talk) 10:20, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
I've protected the election article and the Together we can do everything one. Let me know if they continue to pop up. Cheers, Number 57 11:54, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you, but the IP has continued to make edits on other articles like Greens of Serbia. Vacant0 (talk) 16:34, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Guess who is back! 78.155.63.66 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is the new IP.
2023 Belgrade City Assembly election has been left unprotected. Vacant0 (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2023 (UTC)
And another one: 78.155.45.147 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) Vacant0 (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2023 (UTC)
I've tried a rangeblock this time on 78.155.XX.XXX. Cheers, Number 57 14:42, 11 November 2023 (UTC)

Solomon Islands

Hi Number57. I note your regular edits to reinsert 'the' into Solomon Islands pages For several years, through RAMSI, I was an advisor to the Solomon Islands Ministry of Justice and Legal Affairs. The country name has formally been 'Solomon Islands' since independence. One reason for that was to distance itself from the British Solomon Islands or the British Solomon Islands Protectorate days, which made it look like a possession. In-country, it is rather offensive to call it by its colonial name. The USA has become a standout user of the superseded, colonial nomenclature, perhaps because of the Solomon Islands campaign of WW2 where 'the Solomon Islands' applied to the archipelago, not to a country yet to exist, and which, for convenience, included bits of another country, Bougainville, Papua New Guinea. Perhaps you may wish to consider that:

  • The Constitution of Solomon Islands itself defines the country name as 'Solomon Islands', which makes the page name awkward.
  • The head of state of Solomon Islands, King Charles III, is formally titled, since independence, the King of Solomon Islands, and Elizabeth II the Queen of Solomon Islands.
  • The governor general is formally appointed as the Governor General, Solomon Islands.
  • The national anthem refers throughout to 'Solomon Islands.'
  • The gazetted name listed under the United Nations is 'Solomon Islands'
  • The name used in the CIA country handbook is 'Solomon Islands’.
  • All the ambassadors and high commissioners to Solomon Islands are appointed as such to 'Solomon Islands', even the US Ambassador understands that he is the Ambassador to Solomon Islands. I used to know the previous incumbent, he would be embarrassed if referred to as the Ambassador to the Solomon Islands; references which only came from American visitors never from Australian, New Zealand or British ones who use the correct name. We had a volunteer lawyer from the American Bar Association who came to a meeting and talked about the Solomon Islands; that gaffe was politely put straight by the end of the day over a beer or two.
  • I doubt that it is even WP:common usage anymore, that is very hard to test because of so many pre-1978 historical hits and the use of Solomon Islands adjectivally, as in the Solomon Island Government, as opposed to the Government of Solomon Islands. I suspect that the colonial usage is being kept alive by the USA and its editorial influence on Wikipedia. Maybe this should change. Ex nihil (talk) 11:19, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Template:Election results

Hi, could you take a look at my entry at Template talk:Election results#Width parameter? P. S. If it's the same issue addressed in the previous section Template talk:Election results#Fixed widths I'm sorry, I am not a native English speaker and it wasn't clear for me. Best regards! — Antoni12345 (talk) 11:28, 13 November 2023 (UTC)

Abdul Hadi Awang portrait

Hi, the Abdul Hadi Awang portrait you replaced in the Malaysian general elections is a crop of another deleted copyrighted image. Please scrutinise every image you upload next time whether it is really someone's own work, and if not does it have properly attributed copyrights and permission. HejTuWou (talk) 11:12, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

Tban

Hi, could you clarify if my topic ban is time-limited or indefinite? This hasn't been specified in the decision. Brandmeistertalk 15:15, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

IP, again

Guess who is back: 46.33.208.240 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is now targeting 2023 Vojvodina provincial election. Vacant0 (talk) 17:08, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

Blocked. Cheers, Number 57 17:45, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 20 November 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:44, 20 November 2023 (UTC)

Deletion

You just summarily deleted my comment on Solomon Isalnds, without any response. I suppose you'd better delete this one too, but the idea of the Talk page in Wikipedai is to encourage the Wiki community to talk. Ex nihil (talk) 12:45, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

No I didn't, it was archived by a bot. I hadn't actually noticed your message because someone else left another one shortly afterwards, and I only saw that one when I checked by talk page.
With regards to the substance of your post, we've discussed this before, and I continue to disagree with your assertions. Official names/usage are not relevant to how Wikipedia names the articles in question – what matters is common usage. Looking at the top few stories on the Solomon Times website, pretty much all of them use the indefinite article when referring to the country:
Number 57 12:59, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Odd because I did the same and got a few such as:

  • New Travel Advisory Expands Ban on Passengers Travelling to Solomon Islands
  • Climate Change, Conflict, and Peacebuilding in Solomon Islands
  • Discovering Solomon Islands
  • The government is adamant that Facebook will be temporarily suspended in Solomon Islands.

I did find two references to the Solomon Islands both written by different Americans but in the text and hidden under banners without the 'the'. I suspect that the 'the' is kept alive by two main things: The WW2 United States Solomon Islands Campaign when it was indeed the Solomon Islands and because there is a huge interest in that and, Wikipedia, which often reinforces colonial assumptions, because the colonialists are always in the majority, does the same for another country I worked in, Timor Leste, which it won't budge off East Timor, which was its English language name during the Indonesian occupation. I guess I am chasing cultural respect and objective fact over common usage. That WP:Common Use has a lot of problems and should be used only where a formal, legal name does not exist. Anyway, thanks for listening and happy you didn't just delete the comment. Can do that now if you like. Ex nihil (talk) 15:54, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

It's not odd when, because you didn't do the same (and it's a shame to see such chicanery in a debate). The articles you mention are not current stories, but are from 2019 and 2020 and presumably were found using a Google search. The ones I referenced above are the current top four articles on the website. Number 57 16:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
No Google, random articles direct from https://www.solomontimes.com/ no chicanery. But better leave it there. Don't think we are going to get anywhere useful here. Nice talking to you. Ex nihil (talk) 16:28, 21 November 2023 (UTC)
Those articles are not accessible from the front page of the website, so they are not directly taken from the site. They have clearly been deliberately searched for to suit your purposes. Number 57 18:32, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Macedonia

Hello, according to the Prespa Agreement, only the country changed its name (although thats disputable politics still...) but the adjective remains Macedonian. That hasn't changed. Please revert back the edits to all of the sites regarding Macedonian. "north" macedonian does not exist, its just Macedonian. For example here "2020 North Macedonian parliamentary election". It should be Macedonian parliamentary elections. Read the Agreement here. Wikipedia members have agreed to write just Macedonian. Thanks. Andrew012p (talk) 10:22, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not bound by the Prespa agreement (and frankly, anyone who thinks this is a genuine argument for how to name articles on Wikipedia should not be allowed to edit in this topic area).
Your claim about editors having agreed "to write just Macedonian" is untrue. In the 2019 RfC, there was a consensus on the matter of state/government-associated articles (which would include elections) to use "North Macedonian" and "... of North Macedonia", where a similar form would be used for other countries. As election articles use the adjectival form and not "of Fooland", North Macedonian is the appropriate term to be used for election articles.
It is also worth noting that sanctions are in place in this topic area, and editors pushing a particular POV or being disruptive (such as making untrue claims about what editors have agreed) may be topic banned. Number 57
I don't understand why you wouldn't go for the Prespa agreement? It's an official agreement for everyone. No one else has the right to play with a countries name, adjectives etc. It's stupid in my opinion but let it be. True judgement will come. Cheers. Andrew012p (talk) 13:31, 22 November 2023 (UTC)

ITN recognition for 2023 Liberian general election

On 21 November 2023, In the news was updated with an item that involved the article 2023 Liberian general election, which you updated. If you know of another recently created or updated article suitable for inclusion in ITN, please suggest it on the candidates page. Schwede66 15:44, 21 November 2023 (UTC)

Worthing FC

I simply added a small summary of managerial and competition history during a period (95-00) which was not previously covered in the article, I don't see how this is 'undue' as per wikipedia's definition, could you elaborate slightly on the revert. If 'undue' is because of percieved prominence or bias of brian donnelly (i have no bias towards brian nor have i ever heard of him), a simple removal of his name whilst keeping the history regarding their league status would surely be satisfactory... 69transrights420 (talk) 12:58, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. I removed the sentence about a manager being appointed and avoiding relegation – the reason was that this was undue weight given to this period of the club's history – no other manager is mentioned by name, nor are other instances of avoiding relegation. Cheers, Number 57 14:16, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
i fail to see how mentioning the fact that the club avoided two successive relegations gives undue weight to avoiding relegation or this period in the club's history, when i would think it's not a particularly common occurence, and relegation itself is mentioned multiple times on the article. I'm not sure that the opposite of undue weight is to simply omit large spans of time from a chronological history of an organisation. In addition, why are there only a couple of mentions of their winning of the sussex senior cup given that they have won the competition 22 times? 69transrights420 (talk) 16:17, 23 November 2023 (UTC)
Apologies, I just didn't think it was that important in the scheme of things, and not of the same level of detail given for other seasons. I've no problem adding additional mention of the Senior Cup wins though. Cheers, Number 57 21:23, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

ArbCom 2023 Elections voter message

Hello! Voting in the 2023 Arbitration Committee elections is now open until 23:59 (UTC) on Monday, 11 December 2023. All eligible users are allowed to vote. Users with alternate accounts may only vote once.

The Arbitration Committee is the panel of editors responsible for conducting the Wikipedia arbitration process. It has the authority to impose binding solutions to disputes between editors, primarily for serious conduct disputes the community has been unable to resolve. This includes the authority to impose site bans, topic bans, editing restrictions, and other measures needed to maintain our editing environment. The arbitration policy describes the Committee's roles and responsibilities in greater detail.

If you wish to participate in the 2023 election, please review the candidates and submit your choices on the voting page. If you no longer wish to receive these messages, you may add {{NoACEMM}} to your user talk page. MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 00:23, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

IP again again

78.155.44.58 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again, at 2023 Vojvodina provincial election. Vacant0 (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Rangeblocked again. Cheers, Number 57 21:29, 28 November 2023 (UTC)
Thank you. Vacant0 (talk) 22:16, 28 November 2023 (UTC)

Lithuanian elections 1920

Hi, revisiting the issue. I have made a table of 1920 electoral results by district on my userpage. Could you help calculate the seats per party? I am getting some weird results.

Here a little blurb that I found on the allocation of votes: "the remaining votes, which were not enough to elect a representative in one district, were given only to the parties that entered the Seimas in proportion to the number of seats they had."

Thank you! Renata•3 01:51, 27 November 2023 (UTC)

@Renata3: I've tried to calculate the seat allocations below, but am confused by a couple of things:
  1. Based on the quotas, 88 of the seats were won outright by crossing the quota. However, I'm not clear on how the remaining seats were meant to be awarded. Based on the description you give, I have guessed this is either:
    1. Allocating the 24 remaining seats proportionally based on the 88 seats won by meeting the quota. This gives a total of 50 to the Christian Democrats (last column before the vertical break in the table below). This appears to be closer to the wording you mention, although I don't understand how one gives the "remaining votes... in proportion to the number of seats" unless "remaining votes" should be "remaining seats"?
    2. Allocating the 43 remaining seats based on the total of the remainders for the parties that won seats by meeting a quota. This gives 44 seats to the Christian Democrats (final column below)
  2. Was there a lower threshold for independent candidates? According to Nohlen, they won two seats, but the independents failed to meet the quota in any district (or come anywhere close).
Cheers, Number 57 22:22, 28 November 2023 (UTC)


Electoral district # 1 2 3 4 5 6 Total Total
seats
won
by
quota		 Remaining
seats
divided
proportionally		 Total
seats		 Total
remainder		 Seats
proportional
to remainder
before
distribution		 Additional
seats		 Total
seats
Electoral district center Marijampole Kaunas Raseiniai Telsiai Panevezys Utena
Seats per district 21 20 17 14 24 16 112
Total votes 81,624 129,800 110,757 92,694 169,985 97,431 682,291
Quota 3887 6490 6515 6621 7083 6089
Party Votes Quota Seats Remainder Votes Quota Seats Remainder Votes Quota Seats Remainder Votes Quota Seats Remainder Votes Quota Seats Remainder Votes Quota Seats Remainder
Lithuanian Christian Democratic Party 49,716 12.791 12 0.791 29,055 4.477 4 0.477 41,869 6.426 6 0.426 35,359 5.340 5 0.340 40,986 5.787 5 0.787 42,915 7.047 7 0.047 239,900 39 11 50 2.869 4.0 4 43
Peasant Union 9,718 2.500 2 0.500 13,306 2.050 2 0.050 31,611 4.852 4 0.852 26,567 4.013 4 0.013 12,590 1.778 1 0.778 22,506 3.696 3 0.696 116,298 16 4 20 2.888 4.0 4 20
Social Democratic Party of Lithuania 18,413 2.837 2 0.837 11,047 1.696 1 0.696 42,517 6.003 6 0.003 15,074 2.475 2 0.475 87,051 11 3 14 2.011 2.8 3 14
Labour Federation 23,261 3.584 3 0.584 46,646 6.586 6 0.586 69,907 9 3 12 1.170 1.6 2 11
Democratic Jewish Union 4,874 1.254 1 0.254 10,964 1.689 1 0.689 7,617 1.169 1 0.169 7,215 1.090 1 0.090 8,380 1.183 1 0.183 5,659 0.929 0 0.929 44,709 5 1 6 2.315 3.2 3 8
Lithuanian Popular Socialist Democratic Party 10,650 2.740 2 0.740 5,178 0.798 0 0.798 2,474 0.380 0 0.380 9,996 1.510 1 0.510 5,043 0.712 0 0.712 5,923 0.973 0 0.973 39,264 3 1 4 4.112 5.7 6 9
Central Polish Electoral Committee 2,325 0.598 0 0.598 13,931 2.147 2 0.147 7,829 1.202 1 0.202 5,071 0.716 0 0.716 29,156 3 1 4 1.662 2.3 2 5
Economic and Political Union of Lithuanian Farmers 3,424 0.881 0 0.881 1,804 0.278 0 0.278 1,339 0.206 0 0.206 1,084 0.164 0 0.164 7,651 0 0 0
Farmers' Association 4,645 0.716 0 0.716 2,890 0.444 0 0.444 7,535 0 0 0
Socialist Company of Workers and Farmers 7,498 1.132 1 0.132 7,498 1 0 1 0.132 0.2 0 1
Lithuanian German Committee 7,194 1.108 1 0.108 7,194 1 0 1 0.108 0.2 0 1
Independents 515 0.132 0 0.132 631 0.097 0 0.097 568 0.087 0 0.087 1,184 0.179 0 0.179 1,518 0.214 0 0.214 1,128 0.185 0 0.185 5,544 0 0 0
Progressive Farmers 569 0.088 0 0.088 949 0.143 0 0.143 2,374 0.335 0 0.335 396 0.065 0 0.065 4,288 0 0 0
Polish List 3,665 0.602 0 0.602 3,665 0 0 0
Workers, Public Servants and the Landless 3,513 0.539 0 0.539 3,513 0 0 0
Group of the Landless 3,134 0.442 0 0.442 3,134 0 0 0
Santara 402 0.103 0 0.103 808 0.124 0 0.124 307 0.046 0 0.046 909 0.128 0 0.128 165 0.027 0 0.027 2,591 0 0 0
Union of Working People 2,535 0.383 0 0.383 2,535 0 0 0
Group of Landless in Biržai 817 0.115 0 0.115 817 0 0 0
Kybartai German Group 41 0.006 0 0.006 41 0 0 0
Total seats awarded for quota 15 15 13 12 19 12 86
Total remaining 6 5 4 2 5 4 26

Thanks for this, but the more I looked at this, the more I realized that there is no way to short-cut this if we want truly accurate results. There were things like last-minute electoral list mergers that are just so poorly documented. So I am going thru and creating a list of all assembly members. I thought that should be easy -- just check biographical dictionary of the members. Nope, that's inconsistent for electoral lists and inaccurate for electoral districts. So I went back to primary data -- newspapers published at the time and their piecemeal reporting on the elections -- and cross-refenced electoral lists with result lists (even though some pieces of lists/results are missing). This took wayyyy too long and there are wayyyy too many little inconsistencies all over, but I think I finally got the correct districts and correct parties (people could run in multiple districts, and a couple ran on different but related lists). There is still a lot of work to be done to make it main-space-ready. Then it can be summarized and added to the result table in the election article. Anyway, this is a painful process. I don't think I can repeat it for the other elections (though maybe they are easier as officials had more experience by that time) -- so not sure what to do there. Thanks for listening to my rant, I needed someone to hear my misery :) Renata•3 06:33, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

@Renata3: No worries, I know the pain of trying to piece together election results from research (many hours spent at the British Library...). Best of luck completing yours! Cheers, Number 57 13:19, 29 November 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 4 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 10:09, 4 December 2023 (UTC)

Annoying IP

The annoying IP 46.161.113.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) is back again at 2023 Vojvodina provincial election and 2023 Serbian local elections. Can you semi-protect those articles? Vacant0 (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Number 57 22:05, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

Kotobank

Would you say it is a reliable source? I'm on the fence about it, as it has no sources to articles, and has been questioned in the past. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:18, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

As far as I am aware, Kotobank is not a source itself – it is a search engine across other sources. It has not been discussed at WP:RSN, which would be the place to seek views if you are still unsure. Cheers, Number 57 20:50, 8 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for informing me :) ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 20:52, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Disruptive edit

Disruptive edit may lead you to block Md. Sirajuddaula (talk) 12:18, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

"Greatest Hits So Far..." listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Greatest Hits So Far... has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Anyone, including you, is welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2023 December 10 § Greatest Hits So Far... until a consensus is reached. Skarmory (talk • contribs) 16:15, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Presidential turnout

Hey @Number 57. I was aware that the turnout for all the Bosnian presidential (presidency) election was put in on the top. I wanted to put it below the Bosniak Presidency member election part of the infobox, but then it looks like that the turnout is known for the Bosniak election of a member, but it's not known for the Croat and Serb ones. What do you think a good compromise would be? I do believe that a presidental turnout should be added in and that there shouldn't only be one for the parliamentary election. Bakir123 (talk) 17:23, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

@Bakir123: Maybe the turnout row code could be something like: 45.17% (presidential)<br>45.22% (National Assembly) or similar? Cheers, Number 57 17:25, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Number 57 I'm not sure you're following me. This is what the infobox looks like for the 2022 Serbian general election. You can see the turnout put in the presidential election part. This is something I would like to do for the Bosnian ones, for example the 2022 Bosnian general election, but if I were to do that, it would like the turnout would be only known for the election of the Bosniak member. This was why I put the turnout for the election of the Presidency at the top of the infobox. Bakir123 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Bakir123: I'm not sure you're following me either! I was suggesting doing something like this. The 2022 election doesn't need a split because the turnout was the same for both elections. Cheers, Number 57 17:42, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
@Number 57 Oh I see. Sorry about that haha. That could work. I'll add that to all the elections then. Thanks! Bakir123 (talk) 17:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

IP... again

2023 Belgrade City Assembly election's protection seem to have expired. 46.161.113.129 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) came back just in time to add more misinformation... Vacant0 (talk) 17:01, 15 December 2023 (UTC)

Memphis

Back in 2018 you closed Talk:Memphis#Requested move 4 September 2018 as "moved" and moved "Memphis (disambiguation)">"Memphis" and "Talk:Memphis (disambiguation)">"Talk:Memphis". When Talk:Charlotte#Requested move 6 December 2023 was closed the edit history of the "Charlotte" redirect was moved to "Charlotte (disambiguation)[4]" and the talk page to Talk:Charlotte (disambiguation). Could you please restore the edit history of the "Memphis" redirect to "Memphis (disambiguation) and the edit history of the talk page to "Talk:Memphis (disambiguation)" since there was discussion as I noted in the RM There has been some debate above and at Talk:Memphis about which city should be primary. Thanks. Crouch, Swale (talk) 19:05, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

Done. Cheers, Number 57 20:38, 20 December 2023 (UTC)

2023 Polish election - United Right

The combined number of losses don't add up to -41, but -25, which I don't get, as the results show they lost 41 seats. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:42, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

Someone has compared United Right's total seat count in 2019 and 2023, not taking into account Agreement (16 seats) leaving United Right and joining Third Way. Number 57 20:21, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Ahhhh, of course! ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:22, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

The Signpost: 24 December 2023

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 09:58, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Please move the following

Hi@Number 57 I would request you to please move Opinion polling for the next Indian general election to Opinion polling for the 2024 Indian general election and List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates in the next Indian general election and to List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates in the 2024 Indian general election. I can't move Opinion polling article bcoz the target has been edited multiple times. And I.N.D.I.A. Candidate list article target is protected from creation bcoz of repeated creation earlier but since the article exists in mainspace now it should carry election year as per main article i.e. 2024 Indian general election. ShaanSenguptaTalk 08:48, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Done, although I moved the candidate list to List of Indian National Developmental Inclusive Alliance candidates for the 2024 Indian general election for consistency (I think most election-related articles use "for" rather than "in" – like the opinion polling article). Cheers, Number 57 13:32, 23 December 2023 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I would also suggest you to create a redirect for the "in". Might help incoming links. ShaanSenguptaTalk 05:47, 24 December 2023 (UTC)
@Number 57 please move Next Odisha Legislative Assembly election to 2024 Odisha Legislative Assembly election. This election is to be held simultaneously with the 2024 Indian general election and is in noways possible to be conducted in 2023 as per Election Commission of India rules. Also move Next Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election to 2024 Arunachal Pradesh Legislative Assembly election because of same reason. ShaanSenguptaTalk 03:30, 27 December 2023 (UTC)
Done. Number 57 11:47, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

Dirceu Mag sock is back

He just edited the Opinion polling for the 2024 Pakistani general election page again. Muzzzmuzzmuzzz (talk) 17:27, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

2000 Japanese election (DPJ)

I looked into it further and the party was a merger of splits for New Frontier, DPJ ('96) (the parties themselves too), and Democratic Reform. The parties that were splits that merged into DPJ were split from after 1996. I had a look on the Japanese Wikipedia to check. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:07, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Forgot about the refoundation of New Komeito, so my argument is moot. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:10, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

Re: Liechtenstein elections

Sorry for the late reply on your concerns re: the pages on Liechtenstein elections. The contents on those pages were based on the German Wikipedia's lists of Landtag members (starting from 1862: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Mitglieder_des_liechtensteinischen_Landtags_(1862)). Concerns re: the number of members elected not matching the seats allocated are usually explained on the text following the tables summarizing the election results (also refer to the ones written on the German Wikipedia lists). If ever there's a need to take down those pages, I would support it. Migs005 (talk) 02:43, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

@Migs005: Are you saying you didn't actually consult the source you cited, but just copied information from de.wiki (which does not have inline sources in the lists you refer to)? Number 57 21:52, 26 December 2023 (UTC)
Yes. They were just taken from de.wiki. Migs005 (talk) 12:55, 30 December 2023 (UTC)
@Migs005: You can't do that. If you want to cite a source inline, you have to check it yourself – you cannot assume a source that is simply listed at the end of the article contains the information you are using it to cite. Please could you remove all the inline sources that you have added in this way and replicate how they are used in de.wiki. Thanks, Number 57 12:59, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Category:Tanganyikan suffragists has been nominated for splitting

Category:Tanganyikan suffragists has been nominated for splitting. A discussion is taking place to decide whether this proposal complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Mason (talk) 22:58, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Liechtenstein election numbers

Hello, regarding the 1974 Liechtenstein general election and the elections that followed. You said that the numbers are "definitely not the right ones". I do not believe this is true. Are you positive that these elections somehow had votes more than 7.5x the actual voter base of Liechtenstein? I believe that there is somehow a mistake in that, I find it a bit tough to believe that the voter base of Liechtenstein went from 4051 to 34,610 in a matter of 4 years. Unless I am missing something, if so please let me know.

Basically what I was thinking of to address this is to take the actual voter turnout number and divided it among the percentages that were given on the article already, which produces far more reasonable and likely results. I won't deny this could lead to some marginal inaccuracy but I still think it's significantly better than the current numbers. I would really like to hear your input on this since you keep reverting my changes. Thanks. TheBritinator (talk) 16:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, you are missing something pretty basic. From 1974, Liechtenstein had a new electoral system in which voters could cast as many votes as there were seats in their constituency. For the 1974 elections, this meant voters in Oberland could cast up to nine votes and voters in Unterland could cast up to six.
What you did should never, ever be done. You cannot calculate votes cast by backcalculating from percentages – this is inserting false information into articles. Number 57 16:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Right okay, thanks for letting me know. As for the infobox election template, you also reverted that too. I get that you most likely did so since it did not match consistency but now I have worked to port over every single one from 1918-2025 to that template and have them ready to go. May I please do that without you reverting it this time? TheBritinator (talk) 16:19, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
No, I don't think the infobox doesn't need changing. There is no benefit to adding massive picture of party leaders to the infobox – this is not a presidential election. Number 57 16:22, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
But there is benefit to displaying the information more coherently. It is also more inline with contemporary parliamentary elections. I used 2021 Scottish Parliament election as my reference point. TheBritinator (talk) 16:24, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it is more coherent in the other template, as it contains too much unnecessary information. Per MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE, infoboxes should contain as little information as possible. Number 57 16:47, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
So what exactly invalidates this for Liechtenstein but not for other countries? I don't think it is unnecessary information, if anything it's additional from what I can tell. TheBritinator (talk) 16:51, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I don't think it should be used for other countries' parliamentary elections either.
It is unnecessary because it is not key information. The key information is the party's name, the leader, number of seats won, the change from the last election, and who was Prime Minister afterwards. What isn't necessary is the image of the party leader, the date they became party leader (the use of which was in violation of the infobox guidance), number of votes and seats won at the last election (this can be deduced from the seats won and the seat change). The new infobox was double the size of the old one, to no obvious benefit. Number 57 16:54, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
That sounds far more in the realm of personal opinion. I get your point, but I have my doubts if that's a valid reason for a revert since I don't think I am objectively doing anything wrong here. TheBritinator (talk) 17:00, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE ("present information in short form, and exclude any unnecessary content") is part of Wikipedia's manual of style. Number 57 17:05, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but again - why is this invalidated on Liechtenstein but not other countries with parliamentary elections? By your logic all should be formatted as Liechtenstein's currently is. Whatever your opinion may be that's just not how it is. TheBritinator (talk) 17:09, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
Many articles do not adhere to various guidelines; that does not excuse making others non-compliant. The main issue is resistance to change, as the infobox currently used on Liechtenstein articles was created more recently than the other one, and some editors are attached to having pictures of party leaders in the infobox. Number 57 17:12, 3 January 2024 (UTC)
I believe we are best to get third-party opinions on this, just so it can be settled. For the time being, I have placed my propose infoboxes in my sandbox. TheBritinator (talk) 17:15, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

FYI

Hey there, you seem to be the subject of some off-wiki discussion on Twitter. Not sure if this is something that happens often (hope not), but I wanted to let you know as it might lead to some increased activity here or at 1898 French legislative election. Wracking talk! 05:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

what a snitch. 2607:9880:3608:10D:8CD9:4567:BA5D:C893 (talk) 05:41, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Thanks for the heads up. Unfortunately the information in the articles was falsified; for example, the information restored to the 1898 elections (twice now), did not match the source used. Last year I found there were a large number of French legislative election articles with the same issue, which I attempted to clean up. However, occasionally editors try and reverting the previous information back in. And yes, unfortunately this sort of Twitter stuff does happen occasionally – last year there was an issue where another editor was effectively canvassing on Twitter via a similar method. Number 57 08:26, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
Have you considered using the more comprehensive sources used in the corresponding French Wikipedia article and verifying against them? Glide08 (talk) 09:04, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
If there were comprehensive sources, of course, but (for example) for the 1898 article, the French wiki's results table is sourced to this, which has different seat figures to the results table on fr.wiki, so it looks like at least in some cases, fr.wiki has exactly the same kind of problems as there were here until last year. Number 57 09:13, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I think it says a lot that over many years of disparate discussions of different elections, they all lead back to finding this user annoying and overbearing in pushing their personal agenda on the site.
An example of this is literally on this talk page right above this discussion. 82.28.156.204 (talk) 13:51, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
He’s putting false info onto election pages Georgebroadfield (talk) 14:44, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
the reasoning behind the edits this user makes is incomprehensible to me. 92.210.13.153 (talk) 18:00, 5 January 2024 (UTC)
I'm not sure what is so hard to understand about the fact that information in articles needs to match the sources used, but sadly it seems a lot of people do have trouble understanding it... Number 57 20:31, 5 January 2024 (UTC)

Late 19th century French elections

I do disagree with some of your edits on other pages, but I think the backlash to your edits on those late 19th century French parliamentary elections is absurd. I see nothing wrong with your reasoning for the content removal. I wish people would instead focus on adding sources to these pages rather than blindly reverting to bad information. Jon698 (talk) 21:56, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

@Jon698: Thank you, it's appreciated. It was nice to see that a few fellow editors (like Vacant0) did respond to point out the edits were correct, but those types of responses didn't get a lot of traction. However, it was also disappointing was to see several other editors joining in with the pile-on rather than pointing out that the information being removed was incorrect. A similar experience last year (with a few of the same editors) makes collaboration a bit difficult, particularly when you have editors doing pathetic stuff like this.
All I (and hopefully everyone else editing in this area) want is to make Wikipedia the most comprehensive and accurate source for elections, and for it to have a consistent and effective form of presentation. Editors might not always agree (particularly on the latter), but I'm always up for a discussion. After a rocky start (thanks to the Twitter furore), the discussion at Talk:1902 French legislative election was a productive one that came to a positive conclusion. It's a shame that asking for sources for the 1898 article was seen as "bad faith filibustering" by some... Cheers, Number 57 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)
And sorry for having a bit of a moan in response to your kind comments. Number 57 23:52, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

I've only recently discovered the discussions, but thanks for sticking ground on requiring sources. I'm appaled to discover users on the english speaking wiki taking the french legislative pages of the frensh speaking one as examples when those specific pages are far from being reliable and absolutely in need for a serious revamp since years. Keep the great work. --Aréat (talk) 04:09, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 10 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 12:49, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

An automated process has detectedthat when you recently edited 1991 Bangladeshi general election, you added a link pointing to the disambiguation page National Democratic Party.

(Opt-out instructions.) --DPL bot (talk) 05:50, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

Just Stop.

May you please stop removing information? It’s so annoying and you get rid of all important details of elections pages. 2600:1702:5730:D1E0:4D0:695A:63D3:FC04 (talk) 12:47, 17 January 2024 (UTC)

Clarification

Hi again. Could you clarify if under my tban from Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict-related articles, broadly construed, I'm allowed to edit Azerbaijan-related articles unrelated to conflict (such as Kazim Ziya, Religion in Azerbaijan, etc)? Thanks in advance. Brandmeistertalk 09:06, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

@Brandmeister: No problem with you editing articles unrelated to the conflict so long as the material being edited/added is not conflict-related. For example, you could not edit the sections on Religion in Azerbaijan related to Nagorno-Karabakh (or add any related material). Cheers, Number 57 09:40, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with an election page please

Mr.57, I’m an American who is into politics analysis and I have noticed that some election pages for US elections are missing turnout numbers in the infobox while some have them for example the 2020 & 2022 us senate and house elections are missing them but the 2018 and earlier have turnout figures in the infobox can you please fix that by adding the turnout figures to the infobox as it would be helpful in order for people to look at macro trends by looking at turnout and how it affects results

Rabbipika (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Rabbipika. Do you know the best source to use for US elections? The source used in the articles for the results only contains votes for candidates. The IFES has figures for 2020 and 2022 House elections, but I am not 100% sure they are correct (no invalid votes are listed), and the Senate election turnout for 2022 doesn't seem to take into account elections not taking place in every state... Cheers, Number 57 19:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
That is kind of why I asked for your help
I remember cnn had turnout at some point but I can’t find it now
thanks for offering help Rabbipika (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Not everybody who votes for senate votes down ballot Rabbipika (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Would this help? https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/2022-voting-registration.html Rabbipika (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately not; the figures given in there are not what would normally be regarded as voter turnout –i.e. number of people voting divided by number of registered voters – instead it gives the proportion of people voting as a percentage of voting-age population (which is not the same thing as registered voters). Annoyingly this linked article includes the actual voter turnout figure in a graph (it looks to be around 76%), but does not have the associated numbers... Cheers, Number 57 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

STOP EDITING ELECTION PAGES

Nobody cares that you think the election wikipedia page infoboxes are too crowded. THEY AREN'T. You are stopping people from easily being able to access clear, relevant, and accurate information regarding elections from all around the world. So please for the good of humanity on wikipedia, stop. 27.252.244.9 (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop subjectively removing information.

It's fine to dissent, debate, discuss and try to make people see your viewpoint. What you're doing however is unilateraly deciding how wikipedia should be, and that goes against the spirit of this website. 86.121.79.106 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Kudos

Can I just say I fully support your approach to these articles. I've experienced the same thing on early Australian election articles - results were added a long time ago, well meaningly, by editors applying 21st century understandings of election results but without appreciating the nuances of past election practices, and, more importantly, very little understanding of the actual political context. When you see basic facts that are wrong of course it's natural to just remove/correct them at the first instance. Fortunately I've never had the backlash you've experienced! ITBF (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hey, I heard about all the drama with the infoboxes and wanted to let you know that I've seen all the good you've done here. That your years of contributions are important and that I value the work you've done. That's all, just wanted to let you know that someone has seen all the positive efforts you've made. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Help with an election page please

Mr.57, I’m an American who is into politics analysis and I have noticed that some election pages for US elections are missing turnout numbers in the infobox while some have them for example the 2020 & 2022 us senate and house elections are missing them but the 2018 and earlier have turnout figures in the infobox can you please fix that by adding the turnout figures to the infobox as it would be helpful in order for people to look at macro trends by looking at turnout and how it affects results

Rabbipika (talk) 16:27, 16 January 2024 (UTC)

Hello Rabbipika. Do you know the best source to use for US elections? The source used in the articles for the results only contains votes for candidates. The IFES has figures for 2020 and 2022 House elections, but I am not 100% sure they are correct (no invalid votes are listed), and the Senate election turnout for 2022 doesn't seem to take into account elections not taking place in every state... Cheers, Number 57 19:38, 16 January 2024 (UTC)
That is kind of why I asked for your help
I remember cnn had turnout at some point but I can’t find it now
thanks for offering help Rabbipika (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Not everybody who votes for senate votes down ballot Rabbipika (talk) 01:55, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Would this help? https://www.census.gov/newsroom/press-releases/2023/2022-voting-registration.html Rabbipika (talk) 01:57, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
Unfortunately not; the figures given in there are not what would normally be regarded as voter turnout –i.e. number of people voting divided by number of registered voters – instead it gives the proportion of people voting as a percentage of voting-age population (which is not the same thing as registered voters). Annoyingly this linked article includes the actual voter turnout figure in a graph (it looks to be around 76%), but does not have the associated numbers... Cheers, Number 57 19:13, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

STOP EDITING ELECTION PAGES

Nobody cares that you think the election wikipedia page infoboxes are too crowded. THEY AREN'T. You are stopping people from easily being able to access clear, relevant, and accurate information regarding elections from all around the world. So please for the good of humanity on wikipedia, stop. 27.252.244.9 (talk) 03:42, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Stop subjectively removing information.

It's fine to dissent, debate, discuss and try to make people see your viewpoint. What you're doing however is unilateraly deciding how wikipedia should be, and that goes against the spirit of this website. 86.121.79.106 (talk) 21:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Kudos

Can I just say I fully support your approach to these articles. I've experienced the same thing on early Australian election articles - results were added a long time ago, well meaningly, by editors applying 21st century understandings of election results but without appreciating the nuances of past election practices, and, more importantly, very little understanding of the actual political context. When you see basic facts that are wrong of course it's natural to just remove/correct them at the first instance. Fortunately I've never had the backlash you've experienced! ITBF (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

A cup of coffee for you!

Hey, I heard about all the drama with the infoboxes and wanted to let you know that I've seen all the good you've done here. That your years of contributions are important and that I value the work you've done. That's all, just wanted to let you know that someone has seen all the positive efforts you've made. Dr vulpes (Talk) 08:06, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

Smile, you're on Youtube!

[5]. Just wanted to give you a heads up Mach61 (talk) 20:19, 15 January 2024 (UTC)

Oh hooray. It's a shame they didn't point out the changes to the infobox guidance were a specifically recommended outcome of the RfCs in question (which made it look like I added it in unilaterally). Number 57 20:47, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
lol, I just watched the video, kinda funny, alas Mr 57, don't tell anyone you're really.... Agent 57... Govvy (talk) 21:40, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
To be fair, it much more balanced than I was expecting and it looks like Youtube commenters are a bit more discerning than those on Twitter. I am very much a minimalist when it comes to infoboxes, but had no idea it was so controversial.
If the video creator is reading this, the reason I didn't use Nohlen & Stöver for the 1898 election is (a) the Roi et President source was already used in the article and (b) Nohlen & Stöver's figures are rounded, which look a bit odd when compared with a source that seems to have real numbers. Number 57 22:14, 15 January 2024 (UTC)
Just kinda jumping on the bandwagon here afta the fact, but after having seen the Twitter debacle and the YouTube video, I'm just curious as to why you are such a minimalist around infoboxes? I've just read some of your talk page, and haven't really gotten much outside of 'less is more'.
Purely curious, it's definitely a sentiment I get but don't particularly follow. Thanks, appreciate it CainNKalos (talk) 09:49, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
No problem. I guess I would say my view is that the more information in the infobox, the harder it is to digest and get the key facts at a glance (particularly when infoboxes are expanded to the extent that you need to scroll down the equivalent of two screens). The key facts (IMO) are the parties, leaders, vote share, seats won and change compared to the last election. I would say the other stuff is potentially interesting, but not "key". This is of course only my view, and this is all subjective. However, this isn't just me – the RfCs on the leaders_seat and leader_since parameter had quite a few other editors sharing similar opinions (the !votes were 18–10 and 15–9 in favour of keeping the parameters, so at least a third of participants were in favour of removing them).
Also, as I mentioned during the RfCs, some of the parameters are hard to maintain – particular the leader_since one, which (as someone with tonnes of election articles on my watchlist) I regularly saw being changed without sourcing (Wikipedia suffers from quite a bit of date change vandalism).
TBH it's quite disappointing to be labelled a vandal or to be told I am "ruining" Wikipedia. I've spend thousands of hours researching (including hundreds of hours in the British Library and others to source obscure information) and written thousands of election articles (and added more detailed results to others). Cheers, Number 57 10:26, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Ah okay, thanks, I appreciate ya answer.
I won't comment much on the RfCs, mainly because I'm much more of a reader then an editor of Wikipedia, and don't really know much about internal procedures/policies. However, I do agree with the key info ya listed as the only ones ya need, + the 'leader since' and photos of a party leader; of course, it's all pretty much ya own opinion. (Of course, I'd personally add in the leader's seat in a Westminster system as well.)
Definitely agree with some infoboxes being too long forsure, does seem to be a bit of an issue I've seen with Aussie federal elections in my eyes. (I am Australian myself, so I have a bit of bias there potentially). Again, thank you, I appreciate ya takin the time to answer to my message, especially elaborating upon ya opinions.
(Sidenote: I'd like to say some thanks though, I'm sure you've helped contribute to quite a few articles I've read on here over the last 7 years, and I appreciate ya contributions.) CainNKalos (talk) 11:02, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
maybe it's because you're a smelly englishman? /j
Jokes aside I believe a common sentiment is that you're prone to get into heated arguments with other prominent users in this subcommunity, and your record of adding caviots to the infobox documentation has made some users rather angry. I am not saying this as a personal attack (i dont really have an opinion on you), I just wish to point out what ive observed. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 18:38, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
As pointed out above and below, the edit to the infobox documentation was to add the recommendation of the editor who closed the RfC, which was Editors are encouraged to include appropriate guidance on when to use the parameter (per MOS:INFOBOX) in the template documentation, i.e. only when the information is also included in the article. Number 57 18:54, 18 January 2024 (UTC)
But I wounder if these votes were cast in consideration of readers rather than editors?
As an editor one can simply say "this is useless, off with you." While the user may think it is frearh info to know? 213.113.48.49 (talk) 12:34, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
It's a valid point and I did get the impression from the RfC that there was a split between regular editors and infrequent editors (who may be more readers) between wanting less or more information. Perhaps one reason for that (and certainly one of my reasons) is that more information is harder to maintain (and the specific information being discussed was rarely sourced and prone to vandalism), which is something editors may care more about than readers. However, from my own perspective as a reader of non-election articles, I do also find bloated infoboxes hard to digest (some infoboxes of politicians stretch on for pages and pages). Number 57 12:43, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Just to jump in here, the video actually shows the RFC at 11:12, so the creator of the video knew about it, but he then neglects to mention that the ultimate conclusion that info should be included "only when the information is also included in the article" came from that same RFC. PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 23:11, 17 January 2024 (UTC)
Yes it's at about that point in the video that you can hear the video creator getting out their old tree chopping implement and their abrasive machining device. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:28, 21 January 2024 (UTC)

In a parliamentary system, the leader’s seat is highly important. And removing it from articles in which it is not referenced - that is the worst of both worlds, in that it means the information is not easily available anyways. In my opinion, it would make much more sense to remove it only if it is referenced in the article - otherwise, that information is hard to find. There is even less justification for removing outgoing members, as the whole point of an election is replacing people with other people - who is outgoing is, frankly, one of the most important parts of an election. I agree with you on badly-sourced information, but you’ve become a tad overzealous in that regard, and you should be more open to well-sourced info from newspaper articles and books. Ftrhi (talk) 13:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

I am not sure what you mean by your last comment? I have been trying to encourage proper sourcing for the French articles (although there are still issues that sources are contradictory or incomplete (for example, Cagé & Piketty data (votes by commune) is amazingly detailed, but has a major issue – it doesn't include seat figures, which then begs the question of which source you use for seats, and how can you be sure the two marry up) – see the discussion on the 1902 French election article as an example. Re leader's seat, I appreciate that that's your view, but I don't think it is (and I'm obviously not alone on this given the comments in the RfC). Number 57 13:44, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
In general, while minimalism is good, it goes too far when it turns into removing information from the wikibox (and page) entirely. I can see a case (but disagree) on leader’s seats, but removing outgoing members much less so. It is one of the most important parts of an election and so should have easy access, and a small link at the top hardly clutters the box.Ftrhi (talk) 14:00, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Fair enough; these things are all about opinions rather than there being a clear right/wrong and clearly I am in the minority on some of this. It is quite interesting to see the variations between different language wikis. Many (like Portuguese/Russian) use something very similar to {{Infobox election}}, others like French/Spanish have a much more compact version, German infoboxes are very minimalist and don't even name party leaders while Dutch ones are just a map (or parliamentary diagram)! It would be interesting to know whether German and Dutch readers are upset about their infoboxes being so sparse, or whether it has just become an expectation of English Wikipedia to do it a certain way.
To some extent, perhaps this is about needing better design. I mentioned politician infoboxes being overly long, a lot of which is to do with how {{Infobox officeholder}} is often laid out. Years ago someone created a separate infobox for Israeli politicians to cope with the regular changing of portfolios/parties, the functionality of which was eventually merged into Infobox officeholder. This means articles like Binyamin Ben-Eliezer can display eight ministerial portfolios in probably a third of the space that using the original parameters would. It might be time to have a wholesale review of {{Infobox election}} and see whether it can be done better. For presidential elections, I think the French/Spanish equivalent, with candidates listed vertically is a more efficient use of space. Number 57 14:38, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Please take this as my personal opinion as one German editor: I dislike the duplication of large parts of the article inside an infobox, so I like minimalistic styles. I understand the "easy overview over the results" part, but most of the elections in Germany have no clear winner. Maybe due to bad experiences in our history we don't elect a leader by person. ;-)
So most elections only have "percentages per party" results with results like de:Bundestagswahl 2021. Our infobox is close to what newspapers publish after an election. I could imagine dates, participation rate or other generic stuff added to the infobox, but to be honest: Who needs to know those details at a glance? If one is interested in an election in detail, we have a complete article ready to be read. (EDIT: Btw, the Youtube algorithm currently makes you famous. Not sure if that is a good thing, though. Stay strong!) Windharp (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Addon: Just noticed that in en:Bundestagswahl 2021 which i linked to by accident, the party leaders are actually the most prominent part of the article. Yes, they are elected leaders of their party, and are very public figures. Yes, they get one of the seats the party receives in the election. But as a voter I don't see them as the most important part of the party, and putting them so much into the focus seems strange to me. Windharp (talk) 15:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I suspect this is because the infobox was really developed with presidential elections (where the individual is the important bit) in mind, and then also began to be used for parliamentary elections. If we should have any images in infoboxes for parliamentary elections, it would make more sense to me to use party logos (although then copyright comes into play). Interestingly, what seems to be the first-ever discussion on the infobox format was a complaint about the prominence given to party leaders and their details. Number 57 15:46, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
I mean in most English-speaking countries, party leaders are the figureheads of parliamentary parties in a very strong quasi-presidential way. When someone things of the Canadian Liberals, they think of Trudeau; when someone things of the British Tories, they think of Sunak; and when someone thinks of the Indian National Congress, they think of Rahul Gandhi. Using party leaders absolutely makes sense in such situations, even if it's not applicable to other countries. Ftrhi (talk) 17:10, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
Yeah. Maybe a form of systemic bias? It's mostly people in the Anglosphere writing English Wikipedia, so we're going to be somewhat biased towards viewing elections in a way that we understand -- where party leaders matter more than elsewhere. Elli (talk | contribs) 19:36, 19 January 2024 (UTC)
English Wikipedia has an outsized importance to the Internet relative to other language Wikipedias, and most people's research on Wikipedia amounts to just looking at a wikibox. You can see this by the sheer number of incorrect flags (i.e. Austria-Hungary) which have become common across the Internet and are even being sold in public sales. If you strip wikiboxes of information out of some sort of desire for minimalism, especially in historical wikiboxes, you are fundamentally making that information harder to find for everyone. This is why you get so much hate, both justified and not.Ftrhi (talk) 17:16, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

If I may offer my two cents as a Singaporean editor: I think your observation that "Many (like Portuguese/Russian) use something very similar to Infobox election, others like French/Spanish have a much more compact version, German infoboxes are very minimalist and don't even name party leaders while Dutch ones are just a map (or parliamentary diagram)!" is more important than one might realise at first - why are the various language Wikipedias following wildly different standards when it comes to infoboxes in the first place?

Let me bring an example that's sorta relatable yet not election-related: Infobox station used to have many, many template variations, such as Template:Infobox GB station, Template:Infobox Japan station, Template:Infobox China station, etc. If you click any of these now, all of them redirect to Infobox station. Why did so many infoboxes about stations in different countries exist in the first place? That's because each country has its own cultural norms and nuances - stations are no exception, and hence the various editors that created those initial infoboxes tailored them to suit their own national contexts, whatever they may be.

When it came time to merge all of these various userboxes together into a single, uniform template, most of the unique parameters each infobox standard had was either substituted with a parameter with identical function, or was incorporated into the new unified template. As a result, while most station articles will not have infoboxes as long as your arm, what you will see is an infobox tailored to that station's national context (populated accordingly with important info deemed necessary for that station). Even now, its not a one-size-fits-all solution: Template:Infobox London station is still its own independent infobox template, and just see Shinjuku Station for yourself.

Election articles are comparatively easier to manage, but that doesn't mean the context arising from each country's cultural norms and nuances should be ignored nor dismissed altogether - that would amount to systemic bias. The German-language Wikipedia (and by extension, the German-speaking countries) has their own standards (in this case, minimalistic election infoboxes) that are tailored to their own contexts (for example, German elections usually have no clear winner due to their MMPR electoral system, thus they minimise the scope of the infobox to encourage readers to read the rest of the article to gain a better understanding of the election in full). However, in the case of e.g the 2019 Botswana general election, elections in Botswana do have a clear winner due to their FPTP electoral system. thus the Botswanan infobox contains more information that can succinctly summarise what the article body is describing in detail, and readers can either choose to settle for the summarised infobox or carry on reading - either way, readers will still know who won even if they don't read the whole article. In such a case, the German standard of minimalistic election infoboxes should not be shoehorned into e.g Botswana - it wasn't designed for Botswana's context, and what you get instead is an ineffective infobox that isn't very useful for Botswana. JaventheAldericky (talk) 20:04, 19 January 2024 (UTC)

Please take care of this

Hello @Number 57 Can you do something about 98.114.27.200 the IP has been consistently adding fair use image in articles. They have been reverted multiple times by bot, me and others. But they keep on readding it. ShaanSenguptaTalk 13:07, 20 January 2024 (UTC)

@Shaan Sengupta: You really need to give them a warning first. They may not be aware of the copyright issues. Cheers, Number 57 13:12, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
I thought edit summary might be ok. Anyways I will serve them with one right away. Can you tell me which one to serve to warn for non-usage of fair use images. ShaanSenguptaTalk 13:13, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
You don't need to use a template – you can just explain on their talk page why what they are doing is wrong. Number 57 13:16, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
Ok. Thanks. ShaanSenguptaTalk 13:18, 20 January 2024 (UTC)
@Number 57 No change after warning. The IP is still adding Fair use image. Revision as of 14:14, 22 January 2024. Now I leave it to you to do whatever is needed. I just reported. ShaanSenguptaTalk 15:30, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
@Shaan Sengupta: Thanks for the update – I have blocked them. Number 57 17:48, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

2024 North Macedonian parliamentary election

why always you must correct me what I do wrong??? Mirditor22 (talk) 20:07, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

@Mirditor22: I shortened the party name in the infobox because in this version it was too long and causing the row to break over two lines. Generally we don't use the full names of parties in the infobox when they are this long to avoid such situations. Cheers, Number 57 20:34, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
One More question for this 2005 Albanian parliamentary election why I say because for exaple Socialist Party to have 7% with 42 seats its impossible, they have 39.44 in Constituency Mirditor22 (talk) 20:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
@Mirditor22: Yeah, it's a difficult one. Maybe it would be best to take the percentages out of the infobox because neither set of percentages really tells the true story. What do you think of this version? Number 57 20:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
Its ok! Thanks for your answers i appreciate that. Mirditor22 (talk) 21:06, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

UK Unitary councils

There's an ongoing discussion about unitary council that you were pinged for, but I think you might've missed. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:39, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Category:Anarchists from Austria-Hungary has been nominated for deletion

Category:Anarchists from Austria-Hungary has been nominated for deletion. A discussion is taking place to decide whether it complies with the categorization guidelines. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments at the category's entry on the categories for discussion page. Thank you. Grnrchst (talk) 11:41, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Turkish Political Parties in the 90s

I was wondering if you'd like me to change the colours of them to the customary ones, to which I add which customary colours should I use? The maps, or the seat graphs? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

I've never been exactly sure what "customary colours" are. The insistence by one editor of using them on Danish articles created quite a mess and left the articles out of sync with maps and parliamentary diagrams. Number 57 12:32, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
I think "customary colours" are used in media and here, as sometimes colours can be confusing. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

User:Dirceu Mag

Claims to be User:Dirceu Mag in this edit Special:MobileDiff/1200553426 then continues to disrupt the 2024 Punjab provincial election page by reverting to an older version of the article here Special:MobileDiff/1200756153 using the same IP range, and here Special:MobileDiff/1200558532 using a different IP range. Would you be able to block them? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:24, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Have done. If it continues, let me know and I will protect the provincial election articles too. Number 57 21:30, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
I've seen he's popped up already, so have now semi-protected them all. If the disruption moves to the talk pages, let me know. Number 57 21:40, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Appreciate it, I was working on two fronts, already requested protection for that specific page as it seems they are more interested in Punjab page. Should I pull the request back? Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:42, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
Alright, I will pull the request back as we do not want them over-protected or maybe you can close the protection request. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 21:44, 30 January 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 31 January 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 15:14, 31 January 2024 (UTC)

Question

Hi again. There's a particular article, Anti-Iranian sentiment in Azerbaijan that I would like to edit under my tban. It appears to be outside of tban's scope, but just wanted to make sure, would it be ok on your side as sanctioning admin? Brandmeistertalk 22:42, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Similar to the last query – the article has a few references to Armenians – as long as your edits do not make any amendments to these parts (or add additional material related to Armenians/Nagorno Karabakh), that should be fine. Number 57 22:58, 1 February 2024 (UTC)
Ok, thanks. That was the thing I wanted clarify. Brandmeistertalk 23:05, 1 February 2024 (UTC)

Ip user

Hi @Number 57, can you please look into this ip user: User talk:98.114.27.200. They are continuously adding the free rationale image on to other articles all the time. 456legendtalk 13:55, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@456legend: Thanks for the heads up – have blocked them again, this time for a much longer period. Number 57 14:03, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

British Football's Greatest Grounds

I wrote a draft about this book, mostly for me. Looking at those redlinks in the Team column makes me want to create some new articles. I've been out of football editing for a while; are teams "assumed notable" if they are above a certain level in the league pyramid? The highest placed ground with no team article is Victoria Bottoms (arf), the home of Nanpean Rovers F.C., who at least have an entry on FCHD. Ta. U003F? 07:51, 2 February 2024 (UTC)

@U003F: Yes, clubs are generally considered article-worthy if they have played at the equivalent of today's step 6 or in the FA Cup. Nanpean would meet that through having played in the South Western League and the FA Cup. Marsden would too (FA Cup), but not the others. Cheers, Number 57 08:52, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Super, that's very clear thanks. Another notability question then: for example The Ewe Camp (arf) has a glossy double-page spread in the book, and a couple of newspaper articles about it, mostly referencing the ground's appearance in the book. Would you say that falls short of notability requirements? And, (big) if The Ewe Camp is notable and Northend Thistle not, would you create an article for the ground, or the club? U003F? 14:07, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
@U003F: If a ground is independently notable, it's not a problem for it to have an article and not the club. However, it does sound like it is pretty borderline – perhaps best off as a section in the Lochranza article? Cheers, Number 57 15:46, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
Looking through the book again, I suppose these little clubs/grounds were chosen by the author precisely because they were notable in some way beyond their standing in the pyramid. So I made some drafts: Draft:Northend Thistle F.C., Draft:Millhead F.C., Draft:Old Boltonians A.F.C., Draft:Marsden F.C., Draft:Richmond Town F.C., Draft:Nanpean Rovers F.C. Any suggested improvements? Northend are certainly notable, and I suspect Old Boltonians via their ground are too. U003F? 06:50, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
... interestingly, the author chose Richmond Town's ground precisely because it prevented them from climbing to step 6. Its sensitive location, nestled by the castle, means it can never have the improvements required (e.g. floodlights) for the team to be promoted. U003F? 07:09, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
I would say Northend Thistle is a very marginal case, but Millhead, Old Boltonians (as a club) and Richmond Town are definitely not notable IMO. Cheers, Number 57 12:02, 5 February 2024 (UTC)

1933 German referendum request

Hi! I was wondering if you would be able to work your magic on {{Referendum results}} at 1933 German referendum? I don't have access to Nohlen & Stöver, and was wondering if you would be able to verify/add a page number/etc. Thank you so much! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:24, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

@HouseBlaster: The results match the source, and the page number is 770. Cheers, Number 57 17:27, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
Awesome. Thank you so much!! HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 17:29, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 13 February 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 04:36, 13 February 2024 (UTC)

User:Bolt Kjerag

Bolt Kjerag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), behavior is persistent like Dirceu Mag (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:25, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: Very good point – some of the edit summaries are very similar. I would recommend starting an WP:SPI. Cheers, Number 57 20:02, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Reserved Seats: the current policy is ridiculous

We need to change the election pages to the way I was editing them. I'll explain why comprehensively now.

1. The current position that 'the seat count is based on the number who were elected on the party ticket minus independents who joined' makes no sense because the reserved seat allocation is affected by the number of independents that join the parties in question. Example: Party A wins 30 seats. Party B wins 1 seat. Independents win 30 seats. All Independents join Party B. Party B will get the greater share of reserved seats since Independents have joined the Party. This is how Pakistani electoral law works.

2. The elections from 1970 to 1997 only list the general seats that are elected on election day on the infobox, not the total seats. This creates a weird situation where the 2002 election suddenly starts listing the total seat count on the infobox. The seat changes from 1997 to 2002 compare general seats from 1997 with total seats in 2002. There needs to be a uniformity across election pages.

3. Now we look at the 2024 election and the implications of this strange policy for it. Scenario 1 that I listed above is very possible. PTI's 93 MNAs may join MWM (which has 1 MNA) according to media reports which would make MWM the largest party in the National Assembly and potentially give it roughly 30 reserved seats despite winning a miniscule share of the vote (less than a percentage point). In this instance the infobox would have to show MWM on 100+ seats.

4. Suppose now that PTI MNAs don't join any party. This would contradict your argument of reserved seats being based off of the public vote since they have ignored the largest political grouping and allocated no seats to them.

5. Looking back to 2018 and specifically the 2018 Punjab provincial election, note how PML-N won more general seats than PTI but was allocated less reserved seats. This is a prime example of how reserved seat allocation is affected by which party independents decide to join after an election. So it is not based on the public vote entirely and has proven in the past to be affected by events after the election.

In summary: the current policy is ridiculous because it relies on where MNAs elected on Independent tickets go after the election. These events occur after election day. The election itself is for the general seats, not the reserved seats. We can move this discussion to an actual talk page if needed. But I think I have made my point clear. маsтегрнатаLк 22:50, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

@Masterpha: Fair point – I didn't realise that the allocation was based on independents joining parties after election day. I will self revert.
Do you know where we can find the post-election allocations for the pre-2002 elections? Cheers, Number 57 23:13, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
No worries, thanks for understanding! I find [electionpakistan.com] to be very reliable - it's run by a think tank called FAFEN (Free and Fair Election Network) who compile and analyse elections. They've got results from 1970 to 2018 (and I'm hoping they'll release their 2024 compilation soon). маsтегрнатаLк 23:17, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Actually ignore the website I linked - it doesn't show reserved seat allocations at all. To be honest I'm not sure where you'd be able to find them. Most records of general elections only seem to record general seat results. маsтегрнатаLк 23:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
@Masterpha: Looking at sources for the 1997 election (including FAFEN), it seems there were only 217 seats (all of which were directly elected), not 237 as stated in the infobox? Number 57 23:30, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Reading further, it seems there were no reserved seats in the 1990, 1993 or 1997 elections, as the minority seats were directly elected and there were no women's seats. In 1985 and 1988 there were ten directly elected minority seats and 20 reserved women's seats (although no party affiliation is given for them in the FAFEN document). In 1977 there were 6 reserved seats for minorities and 10 for women, all of which were reserved, but party affiliations are given. Number 57 23:42, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
Very interesting. It looks like the female reserved seats were reintroduced by Musharraf before the 2002 elections after ending in 1990 due to a sunset clause in the constitution. And minorities before this had seperate constituencies which directly elected their representatives. маsтегрнатаLк 23:47, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
I have amended the 1977 article (to add the seat split), add full results to the 1985 one, and edited the seats_for_election sections of all of them to correct the situations. Apologies again for the initial reverts. Cheers, Number 57 00:11, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

@SheriffIsInTown: I saw you reverted these changes. I initially reverted them too, but I realised Masterpha is correct – we cannot say that "All 336 seats in the National Assembly" were up for election, as not all of the seats were based on the public vote – the allocation of the reserved seats is affected by switching after the elections, meaning their allocation is not based on the public vote. Number 57 18:15, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

The assumption made here is incorrect. According to the Pakistani constitution, when a voter casts a ballot for an independent candidate, they do so knowingly, entrusting that candidate to join a party of their choice after the election. While this system may seem unconventional, it is part of Pakistan's electoral process. Despite personal preferences, as editors, we are bound to document facts rather than try to right great wrongs.
Masterpha seeks to address what they perceive as a significant flaw in the electoral process, particularly regarding independents affiliating with parties after the election. They advocate for this change to be reflected not only in current election pages but also in historical pages as it might possibly affect inclusion/exclusion of a popular leader in the infobox of the 2024 page. However, altering Wikipedia content to accommodate personal opinions or preferences is not permissible.
In Pakistan's electoral process, independents contest elections aware that they will align with a party post-election. Voters, in turn, place their trust in independent candidates, knowing they will join a party of their choice afterward. Subsequently, once independents affiliate with parties, reserved seats are allocated. The election of the prime minister occurs after this process, requiring a majority of all seats, including reserved ones.
It is essential to maintain the accuracy of Wikipedia articles by documenting the entire electoral process, including the role of independents and reserved seats, even if it may affect the representation of popular leaders in infoboxes. Therefore, historical pages should also reflect this process accurately. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 18:57, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
This is nothing to do with righting wrongs and nor will it have an impact on whether PTI independents are shown in the 2024 infobox or not.
I also think you've missed a key point here – the voter does not know which party (if any) an independent will join.
I agree Wikipedia accuracy matters, but the current situation is not accurate, because the seat allocation is not based on how the public vote. Number 57 19:27, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Voters place their implicit trust in an independent candidate, believing that the nominee will make the appropriate decisions on their behalf. This is the presumption of the system. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 19:31, 19 February 2024 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not the same as the voter affecting the outcome of the seat allocation. Number 57 20:07, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Speedy deletion nomination of Category:1857 elections in South America

A tag has been placed on Category:1857 elections in South America indicating that it is currently empty, and is not a disambiguation category, a category redirect, a featured topics category, under discussion at Categories for discussion, or a project category that by its nature may become empty on occasion. If it remains empty for seven days or more, it may be deleted under section C1 of the criteria for speedy deletion.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and removing the speedy deletion tag. Liz Read! Talk! 23:06, 19 February 2024 (UTC)

Nomination of Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kelsick and Wilkin Monopoly Breakers until a consensus is reached, and anyone, including you, is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article until the discussion has finished.

Yilku1 (talk) 00:55, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

Another question about Elections in Europe: A data handbook

Hi again! I am back, this time wondering if Elections in Europe: A data handbook provides a per-administrative region breakdown of the 1934 German referendum results (from the article, it would probably be around page 770)? I have been trying to transcribe the results from this German scan, but if there is an English version that would make my life much easier. Thank you so much, HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

To be clear, if it exists I could work from a scan. You do not need to transcribe it for me :) HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 22:57, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
@HouseBlaster: The Nohlen book series only give regional breakdowns for elections, not for referendums I'm afraid. However, here is the official statistical yearbook from 1935, which has the results broken down by Gau.
Also worth noting the figures in the newspaper source are different to the totals in the statistical yearbook and Nohlen & Stöver, so unfortunately you may have to start again... However, it does look like the statistical yearbook is downloadable, so you could try than and see if the numbers are copy/pastable. Cheers, Number 57 23:04, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

You are a lifesaver. Thank you so much!

I was about halfway through trying to read the different region names (the newspaper did not seem to break things down by Gau?), so "start again" is not exactly a loss. Looks like I can copy/paste things, which is awesome. HouseBlaster (talk · he/him) 23:10, 24 February 2024 (UTC)

Next Ukrainian presidential election

Could you please explain your removal of a reference to the Constitution of Ukraine that you summarized as "Not appropriate to refer people to the constitution"? There is another reference to the Constitution in the first sentence with Article 103 the Constitution cited that you kept unchanged. Months ago I briefly explained to you that this wikipage would be biased in presenting constitutional norms if some norms (Article 103) are mentioned and some (Article 64) are omitted. Article 64 is cited, for example, in 1, 2, 3. Laws are listed among Source texts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:2378:1030:EC15:908C:A734:69C2:6977 (talk) 16:00, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The existing reference to the constitution is (just about acceptable) because the text says that something is according to a particular article of the constitution, so referencing that section is appropriate (although a secondary source would be preferable).
The way you attempted to add the reference to the law is not appropriate, because you are instructing readers to go and read two separate documents (a piece of legislation and the constitution) to justify reaching a conclusion, rather than pointing to a source that states the facts you are attempting to reference. This is effectively WP:SYNTH/WP:OR, particularly given that the conclusion has to be reached by seeing that something is not listed in the constitution. What would be appropriate here is a single source stating that elections cannot be held when martial law is in effect. You can reference the law in the text of the article, saying that the martial law allows rights to be withheld except those listed in article 64 of the constitution, but you cannot use that statement as a reference. Number 57 16:17, 25 February 2024 (UTC)

The Signpost: 2 March 2024

* Read this Signpost in full * Single-page * Unsubscribe * MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 11:02, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Number_57/Archive_17&oldid=1212126337"